Global "cooling"... debunked?

[Peephole]

Don't you think it's kind of convenient to claim there is global climate change and that the result is an increase and/or decrease in temperatures? The only other option is for the temperature to stay the same and there has always been a temperature fluctuation since we started recording such things. That's akin to betting on red and black, then claiming you have miraculous powers when you win.

Since there is neither a consistent increase or decrease in temperature (depending on what year you start the graph) I declare it noise pollution to discuss global cooling and warming. Now lets talk about something worthwhile. Did you hear about Haiti?

The ignorance is strong in this one.

Here's the increase in temperature you were looking for:

 

[Matilda]

Don't you think it's kind of convenient to claim there is global climate change and that the result is an increase and/or decrease in temperatures?

Nope. How is it convenient? There's a difference between regional weather and global temperature.

The only other option is for the temperature to stay the same and there has always been a temperature fluctuation since we started recording such things.

Fluctuation and trend are not the same thing.

Since there is neither a consistent increase or decrease in temperature

Yes there is. The trend is up.

 

[ServiceSoon]

......

Here's the increase in temperature you were looking for:


[qimg]http://users.telenet.be/peephole/AGW/NASA%20-%20GISS%20-%20December%202009.gif[/qimg]

I've seen a graph from scienceandpublicpolicy.org that shows a decrease from 2002-2009.

Assuming your graph is fair, honest and complete, why wasn't there an increase in the trend during 1945-1975? The oil embargo didn't occur until after 1973. That event probably took some cars off the road, decreasing the amount of CO2, as did the US national 55 mph speed limit. Oil prices didn't get to their original level until early 1980's, but the trend increases before then.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Nope. How is it convenient? There's a difference between regional weather and global temperature.

Did you miss the betting on red and/or black analogy?

Fluctuation and trend are not the same thing.

Ok. Let's talk about trends.

Yes there is. The trend is up.

I've seen graphs that show a trend that decreases and other graphs that show an increase.

 

[Matilda]

I've seen a graph from scienceandpublicpolicy.org that shows a decrease from 2002-2009.

That's an organisation of climate change deniers, including the absurd Lord Monckton. Why are you more impressed by the information on their website than the consensus of climate scientists?

 

[Matilda]

Did you miss the betting on red and/or black analogy?

No. I just don't think the analogy works -- the weather fluctuates, but the trend in global temperature is up. That's not like betting on red/black.

Ok. Let's talk about trends.

I've seen graphs that show a trend that decreases and other graphs that show an increase.

Link to one of the graphs you're talking about. I'm trying to find the one you mention, but it's quicker if you link.

 

[mhaze]

I've seen a graph from scienceandpublicpolicy.org that shows a decrease from 2002-2009.

Assuming your graph is fair, honest and complete, why wasn't there an increase in the trend during 1945-1975? The oil embargo didn't occur until after 1973. That event probably took some cars off the road, decreasing the amount of CO2, as did the US national 55 mph speed limit. Oil prices didn't get to their original level until early 1980's, but the trend increases before then.

These factors you mention have no correlation to global temperatures that is worth discussing.

 

[Matilda]

Assuming your graph is fair, honest and complete, why wasn't there an increase in the trend during 1945-1975? The oil embargo didn't occur until after 1973. That event probably took some cars off the road, decreasing the amount of CO2, as did the US national 55 mph speed limit. Oil prices didn't get to their original level until early 1980's, but the trend increases before then.

This goes into the reasons for the decrease from the 40s to the 70s:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...er-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming.html

 

[Peephole]

I've seen a graph from scienceandpublicpolicy.org that shows a decrease from 2002-2009.

Find better sources. Christopher Monckton is deceiving you by picking a year in which it was a little warmer and drawing a linear trend from that to a year in which it was a little colder. By picking different years you can easily paint a completely different picture:

Green is Monckton's 2001 to 2009 trend (decreasing).
Blue is the trend from 1999 to 2010 (rising).
Purple is the trend from 2008 to 2010 (rising).

Assuming your graph is fair, honest and complete, why wasn't there an increase in the trend during 1945-1975?

Because there weren't as much greenhouse gasses in the air. Instead there were more aerosols which block sunlight.

The oil embargo didn't occur until after 1973. That event probably took some cars off the road, decreasing the amount of CO2, as did the US national 55 mph speed limit. Oil prices didn't get to their original level until early 1980's, but the trend increases before then.

CO2 in the air kept on rising in those years.

 

[ServiceSoon]

That's an organisation of climate change deniers, including the absurd Lord Monckton. Why are you more impressed by the information on their website than the consensus of climate scientists?

Who's impressed? I just want all the information available on the table to face my wrath of scrutiny.

 

[ServiceSoon]

No. I just don't think the analogy works -- the weather fluctuates, but the trend in global temperature is up. That's not like betting on red/black.

There is a group that says the trend both increases and decreases.

The global warming group changed the name to global climate change from global warming. My analogy fits those people.

Link to one of the graphs you're talking about. I'm trying to find the one you mention, but it's quicker if you link.

I'm at work and don't have time to do that. Maybe later. Cherry picking occurs on both sides of the debate.

 

[ServiceSoon]

These factors you mention have no correlation to global temperatures that is worth discussing.

CO2 has no correlation? Then what are we discussing?

This goes into the reasons for the decrease from the 40s to the 70s:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...er-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming.html

UPDATE: The sudden drop in temperatures in 1945 now appears to be an artefact of a switch from using mainly US ships to collect sea surface temperature data to using mainly UK ships. The two fleets used a different method. The temperature record is currently being updated to reflect this bias, but in essence it means that the cooling after 1940 was more gradual and less pronounced than previously thought.

Different ships, different method, different instruments, different locations, different agenda? It's not like this is science or anything.

In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C,

I guess we just need to stand around and wait for a volcano to erupt. Then our problems will be solved.

 

[Matilda]

Who's impressed? I just want all the information available on the table to face my wrath of scrutiny.

Where you get your information from is very important, or at least an ability to judge the credibility of your sources. How about starting with some credible science organisations or journals, instead of a political group set up by an ex washington staffer with a lunatic British Lord?

There is a group that says the trend both increases and decreases.

Do you mean the group set up by the ex washington staffer and the Lord?

The global warming group changed the name to global climate change from global warming. My analogy fits those people.

Huh? What 'global warming group'? Do you mean scientists?

I'm at work and don't have time to do that. Maybe later.

OK, but I think Peephole has covered it.

Cherry picking occurs on both sides of the debate.

There's a scientific consensus on AGW. There isn't a scientific debate on the existence of AGW. What evidence do you have of scientists cherry picking?

 

[Matilda]

Different ships, different method, different instruments, different locations, different agenda? It's not like this is science or anything.

I'm not clear what you're saying here. They made an error? Yep. That's now being corrected? Yep. Does it undermine AGW or provide evidence against it? Nope. I'm not sure what you're implying with 'agenda.'

I guess we just need to stand around and wait for a volcano to erupt. Then our problems will be solved.

No they won't. The particulate effect doesn't last so long.

 

[lomiller]

The global warming group changed the name to global climate change from global warming. My analogy fits those people.

Both have been used forever. The recent emphasis of the term “climate change” rather then “global warming” actually comes from the denier side. Focus groups by right with spin doctors found that “climate change” sounded less threatening so it was easier to convince people it wasn’t a problem if you use that term instead of “global warming”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

 

[Peephole]

There is a group that says the trend both increases and decreases.

The global warming group changed the name to global climate change from global warming. My analogy fits those people.

I'm at work and don't have time to do that. Maybe later. Cherry picking occurs on both sides of the debate.

No, you presented a number of falsehoods and we corrected them. Care to comment, instead of merely repeating your blatantly false and unsupported allegations?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Find better sources. Christopher Monckton is deceiving you by picking a year in which it was a little warmer and drawing a linear trend from that to a year in which it was a little colder. By picking different years you can easily paint a completely different picture:

Green is Monckton's 2001 to 2009 trend (decreasing).
Blue is the trend from 1999 to 2010 (rising).
Purple is the trend from 2008 to 2010 (rising).

[qimg]http://i45.tinypic.com/sqkprq.png[/qimg]

Because there weren't as much greenhouse gasses in the air. Instead there were more aerosols which block sunlight.

CO2 in the air kept on rising in those years.
[qimg]http://users.telenet.be/peephole/AGW/Maunu%20Loa%20-%20CO2%20Concentrations.jpg[/qimg]

That's the point. Perhaps we should plot the data before the ice age. Looks like global cooling. I can't accept AGW because of this.

Why would it have been a little cooler the last few years? If CO2 is the culprit, was it decreased in the last few years? Even if it was decreased, it's my understanding that CO2 doesn't disappear. How can you account for the cooling period?

 

[mythstifieD]

Fixed that for you

Btw, a recent search of weather.com shows that there will be above freezing temperatures where I live north of Chicago by Thursday this week, going at least through the weekend.

Why do the "coolers" deny that GC is false? I'm not saying there's a conspiracy or anything, but...

I suspect a conspiracy involving Columbia, Helly Hansen, and most definitely North Face to collude the truth about Global Warming by promoting Global Cooling.

I promote Global Lukewarming, personally.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Both have been used forever. The recent emphasis of the term “climate change” rather then “global warming” actually comes from the denier side. Focus groups by right with spin doctors found that “climate change” sounded less threatening so it was easier to convince people it wasn’t a problem if you use that term instead of “global warming”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

You're giving credit to the Bush administration based on a "confidential" memo from a paid consultant suggesting that Republicans use different terminology? Terminology that is later voluntarily used by GW proponents to call themselves? The fact remains that calling it global climate change plays both sides of the fence. What's so hard to understand about that?

Furthermore, you believe that republicans think GW is real and maliciously deny this fact because they want to confuse people to get votes? If you follow the article you linked to that is the mood.

Where you get your information from is very important, or at least an ability to judge the credibility of your sources. How about starting with some credible science organisations or journals, instead of a political group set up by an ex washington staffer with a lunatic British Lord?



Do you mean the group set up by the ex washington staffer and the Lord?



Huh? What 'global warming group'? Do you mean scientists?



OK, but I think Peephole has covered it.



There's a scientific consensus on AGW. There isn't a scientific debate on the existence of AGW. What evidence do you have of scientists cherry picking?

I seem to recall a recent scandal cover up.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Who is Dr Inferno and why is he relevant to this forum?

Again, I ask - how many coolers do we have at JREF?

Hey AAA, add ServiceSoon to the list of coolers.