Man Made Global Warming - yet another opinion

cepheus

I cannot vouch for the source but this relationship looks reasonable. The scatter is due to the other forcings including volcanic aerosols which can be quite marked in certain years.

worldwheeler

A graph that shows a drop in temperatures for the last few years, ta da!


Click for a larger image
Reference: UAH lower troposphere data


A graph that shows temperature dropping for the last few years, ta da!

To return to a crux of the MMGW argument. Ignoring history and claiming that any weather changes must be down to something that has changed in the last 100 years.
I will accept this as part of an argument when you can tell me what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and what caused the transfer from the MWP to the Little Ice Age. Then when you have identified these influences and shown that they are no longer at play in any way that would effect todays climate I will believe that MMGW has a case.
Cepheus , Volcano any answers?

Now consider with all the claims of "the end of the world" look at how the climate change is set to be implemented on the public? TAX! Ah the world can be saved if we pay more tax for energy, travel etc. Now this does not sound like "save the planet for your children" it sounds like "pay for the planet and tell your children to keep paying".

cepheus

worldwheeler why do you not go through the list of questions and answers I posted, do I have to print them out individually?

Objection: It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as it is today. In fact, Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England!

Answer: There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years.

Anecdotal evidence of wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland do not amount to a global assessment.
On its website, NOAA has a wide selection of proxy studies, accompanied by the data on which they are based. Specifically, they have this to say on the MWP:
The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect.
With regard to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, here is some fairly solid evidence that grapes are in fact growing there now, denialist talking points aside. If that is not enough, RealClimate has a remarkably in-depth review of the history of wine in Great Britain, and how reliable it is as a proxy for global temperatures. (Hint: not very.)

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/problems/cause/climate_sceptics/index.cfm

Climate myths: We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

Some climate sceptics argue that the warming we are now experiencing is simply due to the planet recovering from the Little Ice Age, a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1350 and 1850. But the key question is why it was colder during the Little Ice Age. And why didn't the climate remain that way, or even get colder still?
The Earth does not have some natural temperature to which it always returns. If it cools, then it must be receiving less heat from the Sun or radiating more into space, or both. If it warms, it must be receiving more heat or retaining more heat.
The term "Little Ice Age" is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold around the entire planet. After 1600, there are records of average winter temperatures in Europe and North America that were as much as 2°C lower than present (although the third coldest winter in England since 1659 was in 1963).
Comparisons of temperature indicators such as tree-ring records from around the northern hemisphere suggest there were several widespread cold intervals between 1580 and 1850.
Yet while there is some evidence of cold intervals in parts of the southern hemisphere during this time, they do not appear to coincide with those in the northern hemisphere. Such findings suggest the Little Ice Age may have been more of a regional phenomenon than a global one.
Heat transport

Solar radiation was probably lower at times during this period, especially during a dip in solar activity called the Maunder minimum around 1700, but models and temperature reconstructions suggest this would have reduced average global temperatures by 0.4ºC at most.
The larger falls in temperature in Europe and North American may have been due to changes in atmospheric circulation over the North Atlantic, or in the Gulf Stream, or both, reducing heat transport from the tropics (see Climate change sceptics lose vital argument).
The warming after the so-called Little Ice Age may reflect both an increase in solar activity and a redistribution of heat around the planet. In particular, the increase in global temperature in the first half of the 20th century may have been largely due to an increase in solar activity. The continued warming in recent decades, however, cannot be explained by increases in solar radiation alone (see Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11645

misterh

Volcano wrote: »

I didn't.

You did.

That's why I put quotes.

misterh

cepheus wrote: »

I cannot vouch for the source but this relationship looks reasonable. The scatter is due to the other forcings including volcanic aerosols which can be quite marked in certain years.

I think that's a much better graph (without knowing where the data came from).

Although, couldn't we still argue that by increasing the temperature (by whatever cause) more CO2 is released into the atmosphere? - Increased respiration for example?

Hot air from increased debating?

Cardew

The sceptic's bible????

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

cepheus

Cardew wrote: »

The sceptic's bible????

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

I see why you call it a bible it shares many characteristics

The disgraceful manipulation of evidence by the 'Swindle' programme is well known. It was a collection of rather crude distortions in an elegant package. We now know that the data was misrepresented, the charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were designed to mislead. However, why was The Great Global Warming Swindle so persuasive? To give it credit, the programme was in fact a brilliant piece of propaganda, a masterpiece of deception and lies using a number of very clever psychological techniques to catch out the gullible. How did they achieve this?

Durkin’s greatest deception was the absence of a visible narrator. According to the conventions of broadcasting, the narrator can be invisible only when the case he is putting is uncontroversial and unpolitical.

It interviewed an array of experts, many with impressive qualification and positions in reputable scientific institutions. But the labels were often deceptive, giving people positions that they had not held for years.

The programme avoided any unfortunate confrontations with real scientists and allowing them no space on the programme.

Swindle was the product of a public relations campaign that has been carefully honing its arguments for nearly two decades.

The main reason - Many intelligent people want to believe that climate change is a myth. Maybe they find it too threatening to their world view. Maybe they are scared by the predictions. Maybe they find the solutions too challenging to the lifestyle they believe they have earned

http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/

Volcano

misterh wrote: »

You did.

That's why I put quotes.

Your version of my quote:

How can you say "the graph is clearly intended to show correlation between temperature and CO2 since around 1900 to the present"

My ACTUAL quote:

The graph is clearly intended to show the dramatic increase in, and correlation between, temperature and CO2 since around 1900 to the present.

I've put the bit you've cut out of my quote in bold. It may seem a small point to you, but as the very crux of MMCC hinges on it I reckon it would be a good idea to include it.

mech_2

worldwheeler wrote: »

A graph that shows a drop in temperatures for the last few years, ta da!

You do realise that that graph shows a warming trend don't you?

cepheus

mech wrote: »

You do realise that that graph shows a warming trend don't you?

Ah not during the last few months! Actually the graph is cut short, because November 08 was relatively warm and 2008 was warmer than nearly all years of the 20th century. All it requires is a cold spell to being the Deniers out of the closet.

Long term trends, correlations, statistics, Deniers could never be bothered to learn that sort of thing at school, and beside it destroys their illusion and ideology. Drama, public relations, and constant reiteration is far more influential than facts especially when its what a sector of the population want to believe, as Hitler knew.