Thirty years of warmer temperatures go "poof"

reply to post by Essan


I do believe that global warming is just a natural cycle. However that chart you posted, besides mismarking the warming and cooling periods, shows it to be a much longer trend than 30 years. If it was indeed temporary then the chart would be reverting back to mean of 0 at some point before the end of the century. The chart justs shows it getting hotter as whole.

When are people going to talk about the real issues of widespread petroleum use. How about dirty air? Dirty water? Reliance on foriegn countries? These are much more important issues than global warming.

Originally posted by Essan

One thing that strikes me about this image is how easily we can see a linear increase in temperature, even since 1900. Sure there are ups and downs, but it's not like the massive increase in industry and vehicle traffic in the 30s-70s (ahem, increase CO2 production) accelerated anything. Seems to be pretty much constant to me.




The green line is mine, and represents the best fit. As you can see it cycles, with some peaks above said line and some valleys. None of them are really larger than any others. I think that might tell ya a bit about how factless most global warming campaigns truly are. Temps are increasing overall, sure, but they have since we started recording temps.

I think we need to focus on recycling, reducing power consumption, etc. for OUR sake, not for mother earth's. She's been through a war or two and has come out just fine.

[edit on 10/21/2008 by Fiverz]

reply to post by Fiverz


The lack of knowledge becomes a it old.........

The warming resumed by 8500 BC. By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.

From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea level today. A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.

The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.

The period 900 - 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels. A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s.

www.physicalgeography.net...

Please NOTE the "Climatic Optimum" was 1 to2 deg C WARMER than today.....WARMER.....get it .....HOTTER...than today and it is the "OPTIMUM" temperature............

The "we're all gonna die" trend line you show only sees a 1 deg rise......

Grow UP....research something outside your idiot prof's..........they all have an agenda.............

The truth is out there......find it.........


When MAN controls the sun then man controls earth climate..

Originally posted by heliosprime
Please NOTE the "Climatic Optimum" was 1 to2 deg C WARMER than today.....WARMER.....get it .....HOTTER...than today and it is the "OPTIMUM" temperature............

The "we're all gonna die" trend line you show only sees a 1 deg rise......

Grow UP....research something outside your idiot prof's..........they all have an agenda.............

You forget one very significant difference.

During the Holocene Climatic Optimum there were about 6,690,000,000 less people on the planet - ie about 0.15% of current population. None of them lived in big towns or cities. None of them drove cars. None of them played ipods. All of them caught or found their own food, made their own clothes and were wholly independent. And they could quickly adapt to anything nature threw at them.

The issue with GW is not that the temp itself will be catastrophic, but that the consequences of such a temp rise for our modern, static, incompetent and highly unadaptive society would be catastrophic.

The same, incidently, would be the case were we predicting a significant fall in temps.

Basically, the human world as we know it can survive within only a small range of temp variation. About 2c either side of the 1961-90 standard. Which is less than the range in natural variability over the past 10,000 years. At present there is no likelihood of global temps falling 2c below, but some do predict they may rise 2c or more above. Hence our concern.

Yes the world can survive higher temps. But you and I cannot.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by Essan]

Originally posted by heliosprime
The lack of knowledge becomes a it old.........

I think you best re-read my post. I agree with those that say it is purely from normal sun-based activity. It is nothing but valleys and peaks over a linear rise - in the timeline of this chart. It could have been declining overall, increasing, static (who cares!!!) in another time. And maybe if we had clear data going back to B.C. with daily temps, it would be 100% flat with no change.

The point I was TRYING to make is that there is no supposed "rise" in temperature PURELY from CO2 emissions of the industrial revolution. True temps are rising a bit, but it's just a natural thing and you can see from the chart there are hills AND valleys both above AND below when more CO2 was introduced. If it was purely mad-made CO2 causing temps to rise, you would see a straight linear rise with no valleys below the chart's average. Hence, global warming being man-made = bunk.

Now maybe I didn't fully articulate that point. I do have to say it is people like you that keep me from posting often here on ATS. Even on a topic I AGREE on, I find people do not take the time to fully read AND understand previous posts.

Eh, /rant.

[edit on 10/22/2008 by Fiverz]

reply to post by heliosprime


Great piece there, nice posting.

What people seem to forget is that there are cycles within cycles within cycles within cycles when it comes to the climate here on Earth. They all run on different time lengths, overlapping and then not overlapping. The real hard thing to do is actually find all the cycles and then determine which ones are coming up next. Too much credence has been put into short term observation and trends lately without proper modeling to back the assertions from those short term events.

Regardless of whether one believes/disagrees with the idea of human caused global warming, you have to admit that continuously pumping astronomical amounts of CO2 cannot possibly be good. It wouldn't naturally be produced at such a rate, and therefor cannot possibly have anything besides a negative impact on our planet. It's kind of like smoking, even if you didn't believe that smoking causes cancer, pumping your body full of smoke on a regular basis cannot possibly be good for you. It's pretty much common sense. To think that this much unnatural CO2 is not causing some type of problem is rather daft.

Originally posted by Essan

Basically, the human world as we know it can survive within only a small range of temp variation. About 2c either side of the 1961-90 standard. Which is less than the range in natural variability over the past 10,000 years. At present there is no likelihood of global temps falling 2c below, but some do predict they may rise 2c or more above. Hence our concern.

Yes the world can survive higher temps. But you and I cannot.

Please provide proof for your belief of that temp range. I understnWe have no real models to predict what a 2c temp increase would do on a planetary scale other than increase ocean levels and effect coastlines. wouldn't more water and increased temps create more water vapor and hence more rain? Perhaps the arid regions of the world would become human habitable. I remember reading that there are parts of the Western Sahara that are witnessing small scale greening, perhaps this is an indicator of what the future holds?

Originally posted by Osiris1953
Regardless of whether one believes/disagrees with the idea of human caused global warming, you have to admit that continuously pumping astronomical amounts of CO2 cannot possibly be good.

CO2 "pumped" into the atmoshpere by mankind accounts for....0.01%

Thats right 99.99% of the entire atmoshpere IS NOT manmade CO2.

So there is your "massive" amounts...........

Originally posted by disgustedbyhumanity
reply to post by Essan

 

When are people going to talk about the real issues of widespread petroleum use. How about dirty air? Dirty water? Reliance on foriegn countries? These are much more important issues than global warming.

ah yes, a star for you..

this is a point that seems to get lost all the time.

what do the morons say "drill, baby, drill".. yeah, that will totally help my asthma and bronchitis.