There's one thing that we do know with an absolute certainty. The Earth's climate has been much cooler and much warmer, before man's arrival. And it's been changing constantly. Fighting climate change is the ultimate Quixotic undertaking. Take all those billions and put them into ensuring the poor have clean water to drink and clean air to breath. Eradicating hunger would be a good idea as well. Of course the powers that be aren't interested in that, you'd actually have to produce tangible results. All we getting from the climate crusaders is more hot air and taxpayers' money disappearing into the black hole of corruption.
25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Agreed,...we are looking at a infinitesimal part of the earth's history,...to make any grand proclamations about what is effecting the worlds climate, and how,...is pure arrogance.
Shit Manitoba has a long way to go before it returns to its much warmer climate, but Canada as a whole,...doesn't like its going to happen anytime soon.
But this exercise in futility,...does support a lot of those who would be otherwise unemployable,...so I guess it has one positive.
FAST
PS: Newly analysed Nasa satellite data from east Antarctica shows Earth has set a new record for coldest temperature ever recorded: -94.7C (-135.8F).
It happened in August 2010 when it hit -94.7C (-135.8F). Then on 31 July of this year, it came close again: -92.9C (-135.3F).
Other coldest ever records have been set it the last few years, world wide,...
That's a start.
Now, take a look at this graph and honestly tell me that you think climate change has stopped.
Who in their right mind really claims that chart is not going up?
To ignore what we know of the history of climate change is pure arrogance.
The last time the Earth hit 400ppm CO2?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...n-pliocene-last-time-co2-levels-above-400ppm/
Well, stating that the debate is over does not make it over. What kind of person insists on ending an argument by saying that the argument is over, when it clearly isn't?
Well, that chart has certainly gone through some interesting revisions over the years.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/nasa-rewriting-the-past-to-suit-the-needs-of-funding/
Nonetheless, it's important to understand what the chart tells us about the flaws in the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
For example, let's start with the period from 1920 to 1940. The chart shows a significant increase in the Earth's temperature (and earlier versions of that chart show an even more significant period of warming). Why is that? The burning of fossil fuels wasn't a factor in that period. The warming was clearly due to natural variants.
Now, let's look at the period from 1940 to 1970.
The chart, and other data, show there was a slight cooling of the planet during that time (remember that it was in the '70s when they were predicting the return of another ice age).
Yet, according to the hypothesis of man-made global warming, there should have been a significant increase in the Earth's temperature during that period, due to the burst in industrial activity following the Second World War. The huge increase in the Earth's temperature that should have occurred according to your hypothesis never materialized.
As well, if you look at the period from the late 1990s to the present, you don't see the skyrocketing increase that was predicted -- as I have been saying. Indeed, you don't really see any statistically significant increase at all.
In the entire stretch from 1880 to the present, there is only one period -- from the late 1970s to the late 1990s -- where there is a correlation between man-made CO2 emissions and the warming of the planet. Most of the chart contradicts the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
The issue isn't whether or not the planet has warmed somewhat since 1880. It has. Everyone agrees on that point.
The issue is whether the warming can be primarily attributed to man-made CO2 emissions. The data -- and your chart -- show there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.
To paraphrase something that George F. Will once wrote, when people say the debate is over, you can be sure of two things: The debate isn't over, and the people making that claim are losing the argument.
Of course the chart changed over the years. They added new years of data, incorporated hundreds more studies and data points and it became much more accurate.
That's the way science works. Do you really think that they should make a chart in 1980 and stick with those findings forever? That's ridiculous.
Oh my fucking god!
Do you really, honestly believe that burning of fossil fuels wasn't an issue in 1920 to 1940?
CO2 has been increasing in the atmosphere due to human action since about 1850 or so, though recent papers suggest even earlier influences. First we burned whale oil, after we killed off most of them we burned coal. During Dicken's time the air was so dark from coal smoke in London visibility was an issue. Now we're burning everything we can find.
Your claim shows you are really stupid, and have no understanding of science or history.
40-75 year lag time.
I've read both those numbers in different articles and papers, but the idea is the same. It takes between 40-75 years for the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere to change the climate, due to inertia in the system (like how long it takes to heat up the oceans, for instance).
Your attempts to link specific years to CO2 levels of that year show another basic misunderstanding.
Research it, and until you understand the science enough don't even bother trying to make this claim, it just makes you look even more stupid.
Are you that stupid?
Sorry to keep hammering on this point, but its really quite unbelievable.
You already said this:
Which pretty much destroys your argument.
Again, how can you look at this chart and say:
1) the red line is not going up
2) the red line has stopped going up
That's a really easy question, basic high school graph reading.
Sorry, Frankfooter, but you're now contradicting your own sources.
Let's start with the warming in the early part of the 20th century. You say the emissions from the burning of coal were significant enough to have been a primary cause of warming -- but the climate researchers don't support you on that one.
For example, the IPCC says man-made factors were only a dominant cause after 1950: https://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf. Unless you feel the IPCC is also "stupid," you're going to have to learn to accept the findings of your own sources.
(By the way, those coal plants you're talking about didn't all shut down in 1940. Your argument doesn't explain why the period from 1940 to 1970 was flat -- or cooling slightly -- if human activities in the early part of the 20th century were driving warming).
Now, let's go to your lag-time argument for the period from 1940 to 1970. Since we don't know how (or if) man-made CO2 emissions affect the climate, that might be possible. But it still doesn't explain the fact that the Earth's temperature hit a plateau in the late 1990s and has remained pretty much flat since then (those miniscule changes you're citing on your red line are statistically insignificant and well within the margin of error for the data being reported).
Here's the infamous hockey-stick graph that reportedly shows how increasing man-made CO2 emissions affect the climate. Notice how the temperatures are now supposed to be skyrocketing upwards, given that 25 per cent of all of mankind's CO2 emissions were released in the past 20 years:
Let's start with the warming in the early part of the 20th century. You say the emissions from the burning of coal were significant enough to have been a primary cause of warming -- but the climate researchers don't support you on that one.
For example, the IPCC says man-made factors were only a dominant cause after 1950: https://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf. Unless you feel the IPCC is also "stupid," you're going to have to learn to accept the findings of your own sources.
(By the way, those coal plants you're talking about didn't all shut down in 1940. Your argument doesn't explain why the period from 1940 to 1970 was flat -- or cooling slightly -- if human activities in the early part of the 20th century were driving warming).
Now, let's go to your lag-time argument for the period from 1940 to 1970. Since we don't know how (or if) man-made CO2 emissions affect the climate, that might be possible. But it still doesn't explain the fact that the Earth's temperature hit a plateau in the late 1990s and has remained pretty much flat since then (those miniscule changes you're citing on your red line are statistically insignificant and well within the margin of error for the data being reported).
Here's the infamous hockey-stick graph that reportedly shows how increasing man-made CO2 emissions affect the climate. Notice how the temperatures are now supposed to be skyrocketing upwards, given that 25 per cent of all of mankind's CO2 emissions were released in the past 20 years:
That agrees totally with my claims.
I'm saying that man made CO2 increases started in 1850 or so, increasing nearly exponentially to present day.
The effect at around 1850 was fairly minimal, as use built up. That combined with the 40 year or so lag in climate change reaction to CO2 increases combine to create the rise in global temperature we see now, with what the IPCC reports as CO2 increases being the dominant factor in temperature increases since 1950. It was the primary cause in 1020-1940, but its effect wasn't nearly as dramatic as the effects we see now.
That is exactly what I was claiming.
You, on the on the other hand claimed it was 'natural variation', now what I find totally amusing and pathetically sad at the same time is that you will accept that there is variation in the climate here but then refuse to accept it around 1990 (after one of the largest El Nino years on record). First, you have no hypothesis, studies or data to back up this claim it was 'natural variation' then when shown a similar part of the chart in 1990 demand that this isn't natural variation but a stopping of climate change. Ridiculous and pathetic all at the same time.
Lets clarify that statement.
]You don't know how (or if) man-made CO2 emissions affect the climate.
The science behind the greenhouse effect is basic and simple.
Increase CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature goes up.
Its that simple.
The complex part is in recording the data and trying to predict what changes in temperature do to the climate around the planet, from ocean temperatures and currents, glaciers, polar ice to jet streams, that is complex.
As for the hockey stick graph.
http://grist.org/climate-skeptics/2...chael-mann-quietly-vindicated-for-the-umptee/
Even the NOAA graph I've posted in here confirms his findings, the numbers on this graph totally confirm his hockey stick graph predictions.
You're losing track of your own lag time.
The significant change in temperature was from about 1910 to 1930. If the impact of increasing emissions didn't come until much later, then the increase that occurred in that period wasn't primarily caused by human factors.
Indeed, the IPCC says human factors were only the dominant cause for the increases seen after 1950. If you accept your own sources, you must accept that the dominant cause of the temperature increase in the period from 1910 to 1930 was natural variants.
By the way, you still haven't explained the slight cooling that occurred in the period from 1940 to 1970, and how that contradicts the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
Utter nonsense. The graph you've posted does not show temperatures skyrocketing upwards in the period after 2000. At best, all it shows is a statistically insignificant increase (and the satellite data show no increase at all).
Here are two graphs that plot the IPCC predictions against the results.
The first is from the IPCC itself. It is from the second draft of Chapter 1 of the AR5 report released in 2013.
Note that the actual results in recent years are well below the predictions and the most recent temperatures recorded in the graph are below even the lowest part of the IPCC's wide-ranging predictions.
Meanwhile, here is a graph from the National Post using data from the Met Office in the U.K.
Check the actual temperatures against the predictions. The predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
No.
You are cherry picking data and it still doesn't support your claim.
1910-1930 according to your National Post chart isn't significant at all.
The findings are well within the IPCC ranges according to CO2 output.
False.
The IPCC only says the data clearly supports saying that humans caused most of the climate change from 1950 on, from your IPCC link.
It does not say humans didn't effect the climate before then in that statement.
You really still can't read a graph, can you?
Your graphs say that the IPCC predicted about .8 degrees Celsius change and that in 2011 or so (whenever those ancient denier posts were made) that it hadn't happened yet.
I'll post the most recent NOAA or NASA chart once more for you.
This time take a look at the numbers at the far right of the graph.
Note that we've now hit 0.8 degrees Celsius in deviation for Global temperature, which makes the hockey stick and the IPCC predictions right on the fucking money.
Bingo, excellent work.
Too bad you can't read a fucking graph or you'd realize how idiotic you look when you continue to post graphs that show you are wrong.
Even your IPCC chart now has us hitting the top of the red prediction AR4 and right smack dab in the middle of where they predicted.
The recent data shows you are totally wrong.
How come you can't read a fucking chart to understand that?
You're becoming a denier, Frank.
The hypothesis of man-made global warming is that man-made CO2 emissions are the primary driver of warming, not something that merely "affect" the climate.
The warming in the early part of the 20th century was primarily caused by natural variants. That confirms what I said in my previous post and it looks like you now agree with me.
As I said in a previous post, I'm willing to wager that I'm right.
Last year, I made a friendly bet with Groggy about the IPCC's predictions. As we all know, in the IPCC's AR4 report in 2007, the IPCC predicted the Earth would warm by an average of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
That would mean the temperature in 2017 would be about 0.2 degrees C higher than what it was in 2007.
I say it won't happen. And I'm willing to bet on it.
My bet with Groggy no longer counts as he has been banned. But I'm willing to let others take the bet.
My approach is entirely reasonable. Since these things can never be predicted with precise accuracy, I'll allow for a buffer. If the temperature in 2017 is only 0.19 degrees Celsius above 2007, you still win the bet.
Anything less than that and I win.
It's a reasonable wager. The 0.2 degrees Celsius prediction was only an average, not a high-end prediction. I'm giving the person who bets against me the chance to win if the increase is less than the IPCC's predicted average.
What do you say, Frank. Would you like to take the bet?
If so, I'll bookmark this thread and we'll see in a few years time who was right.
Before you take my bet from the previous post, you might want to take a closer look at your graph -- that's 0.8 degrees Celsius over a 75-year time period.
That's certainly not evidence of any anthropogenic factors (indeed, it includes a 30-year stretch where there were significant increases in man-made CO2 emissions and there was no warming). And it sure as hell ain't what Mann and the IPCC were predicting.
Read the fucking chart!
Are you really so fucking stupid that you can't see that the recent increases, including last year's record warmest year ever, have now very sadly made the IPCC and Mann 'hockey stick' graph look incredibly fucking accurate?
Can you not read the numbers on the IPCC prediction you said we were nowhere near hitting (a hint, it was 0.8ºC) and notice where we are now on this graph (another fucking hint, its 0.8ºC)? And how about the 'hockey stick' graph? Again, it predicted temperatures of about 0.8ºC, where we are right now?
If you're going to bet, use the recent numbers and reports.
Here's the most recent quote:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
I'm willing to take a bet based on the most recent report using the projections they use with 'medium confidence', that is between 0.3ºC to 0.7ºC for a 20 year period.
Of course if we don't use your cherrypicked dates using the older 2007 estimates you've already lost this bet.
Global temp anomaly was 0.29ºC in 1994 and in 2014 it was 0.68ºC, an increase right in the middle of their prediction and even right on the money for your 2007 0.2ºC bet.
Even better if you look at the last twenty years, from 1984 to 2014.
1984's anomaly was 0.12ºC compared to last years' 0.68ºC, a difference of 0.28ºC/decade. Even bettering your bet.
What are you willing put on the table for this bet you've already lost?
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The bet stands as it is. The bet is on the IPCC's prediction that the Earth's temperature in 2017 will be 0.2 degrees Celsius higher than it was in 2007.
(If you want to make a counter bet, based on your adjusted data, that the Earth's temperature will be 0.25 degrees Celsius higher in 2017 than it was in 2007, that's fine with me. That seems like an odd thing for you to do but I have no objections).
That's a wager we can track and return to when the results are known.
If you take the bet, here are the terms:
If you win, I have to purchase and read the following: http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-...5&sr=8-1&keywords=climate+wars+-+michael+mann
But if I win, you have to purchase and read the following: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2088243002&pf_rd_i=desktop
Do we have a bet?
You know, Kathleen Wynne plans to tell her grandchildren that she helped save the planet by driving the economy into the ground.
Surely, you don't want your grandkids to be disappointed? :biggrin1:
