Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Well I have been duly warned to play nice or I will have to go sit in the corner. So I will play nice.

 

Alric - your chart of course includes surface temps polluted by urban heat and "adjusted" as shown below.



But even with the "adjustments" that are documented above, where is the warming trend for the last 10 years in the chart you provided?

Also - from your chart (and to beat a dead horse), why the warming from 1910-1940 and cooling from 1940-1980. Have you had time to find the answer for that in the peer reviewed research yet?

 

Tim,

Clearly, you can see that it is warmer in 2000 than in 1980! I take from the graph that if it was not warmer in 2000 than in 1990 at the very minimum it was certainly not cooler. Does it not concern you that it the trend is clearly toward the warmer, in spite of any (perceived or real) short term blips?

Does it not concern you that the years from 2000-2009 are warmer still, in spite or the deniests claim that the temp in the 1990's was going down?

 

Icarus, you do realize that chart is plotting differences?

 

Sorry, when the plots from GIS themselves paint a completely different picture.

You missed my point - my point was that alarmists will ring their bells - as they should! But if we must satisfy all your criteria, we will never change our behavior.

Sigh. Taking quotes out of context again. I said "relatively" constant. The currently, solar forcing is at a 10 year low.

 

Oh the moderator is warning people now? Well that's good. Although I think we need more freedom of expression on Priuschat.

Unfortunately, calling AGW deniers ridiculous, selfish, and liars would presumably be considered "crossing the line".

Even though, if they got their way and their pitiful posts somehow successfully stopped the global collective action against catastrophic warming, they would be dooming 100s of millions and perhaps billions to war, starvation, and economic ruin.

Ironic isn't it.

 

Anybody that claims that it's getting cooler over the last 10 or so years should automatically be put on an ignore list.

Such a person is NOT worth engaging in conversation with, because they clearly have lost touch with reality. And I don't mean that in a condescending way but in a literal way.

 

I don't know what to say but "you've got to be kidding..." The trend I plotted was using their data, and a computer plotted it and calculated the trend line. You can do this for yourself at woodfortrees.org I merely gave it the years, and it plotted it. It is straight legitimate math. It is plain as day. You can deny it all you want, but you denying it does not make it a truth. There's nothing else to say about that except that you are completely wrong. See the graph at the bottom of this post.

 

I think this graph perfectly summarizes the denialist position.

 

I noticed you have not replied to TimBikes yet.

 

Yes I have...many times...

 

Ah, I apologize. I meant a legitimate explanation!

You see, because a skeptic might say something like this:

1850-1934 - Very little warming, with very low levels of CO2 - POOR CORRELATION
[Science attributes the above warming to solar irradiance]
1934-1980 - No warming, despite rising levels of CO2 - POOR CORRELATION
1980-2001/2 - Warming, with rising levels of CO2 - GOOD CORRELATION
2001/2 - 2010 - No warming, despite record high levels of CO2 - POOR CORRELATION

It seems that not only is it not a 1:1 relationship, there may be no relationship at all.

 

According to Marc Shepard. (radioprius1' scandal #1) Don't make me laugh and puke. Here are his credentials.

Marc Sheppard is a technology consultant, software engineer, writer, and political and systems analyst. He is a regular contributor to American Thinker, The New Media Journal, Opinion Editorials and Men’s News Daily.

WOW, Some scientist! Mens News Daily?

 

Attacking the person does not invalidate his argument. Why don't you look at the argument and try to invalidate it? I don't think anyone has rebutted the argument, because it's a fact that the "hide the decline" is a deceitful trick. The best that has been done for the "hide the decline" trick is that AGWers try to provide damage control.

 

I read the negative and it makes no sense.

A quote from the author of radioprius1' scandal #2 Stephen McyIntyre

"I've spent most of my life in business, mostly on the stock market side of mining exploration deals," he said in 2009.[1]

 

Now that I have read all three I see no science in them. Yes you can dispute the article based on the authors credibliity. Neither have proven anything. I won't even read some peoples writings unless found in a scientific journal (peer reviewed).

 

Here is a great site that explains the human role in Man Made Global Warming. There is justification for the fact that humans can and are changing our climate. I hope this helps everybody to understand this complex and dynamic problem. This can only be solved by massive cuts in CO2.

 

Unfortunately your personal attacks against Steve McIntryre are unfound, and demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. Steve McIntyre discovered that Mann and the rest of the crew were misusing data. They literally had data flipped upside down.

If anyone is interested in reality, they can read the links. They even had to publish a correction because of McIntyre's find, etc.

Another Correction from Upside Down Mann Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]
Upside-Side Down Mann and the "peerreviewedliterature" Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]
Yet another Upside Down Mann out Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]
It's Saturday Night Live Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Do not embarrass yourself and try to fight the flipped Tiljander scandal - this is a well known, monumental screw up by the CRU. It's even in their emails.

Sorry, but just because you can not understand something doesn't disprove it. In fact if you can't understand it then you probably have no business commenting on it.

I challenge you to review the three articles and point out anything that is wrong. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

Everything is wrong with them. In science you cannot disprove a negative. e.g. Science cannot disprove god. That doesn't prove God exists. I can say that I went out and measured the temperature of my back yard yesterday and say it was 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Try and disprove that! You can't. So does that make it fact! On the other hand all of the peer reviewed work can be replicated.

 

BTW I have been to the glaciers and have seen the result of man made global warming. Many have been there and have seen the same result. In fact over and over this has been seen by many of people and scientists. It is a nobrainer. Now we can get on with the work ahead of slowing the process and then reversing it.