[Toasty]

But global warming isn't real

BBC said:

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

Really? Because I myself, along with millions of other people, have been saying this for years now.

We've also known this for quite some time:

Quote

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

From my perspective, this article just comes across as horribly moronic, in the fact that this is what a lot of people have been saying for freaking ages. And only now do they say "Oh yeah, apparently when we said the earth's temperatures have been rising, we weren't telling the truth."

[Golden Legacy]

A lack of an increase in global temperatures =/= cooling.

"The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization".

The article you posted says that because 1998 was a warmer year than 2007-2008, that global warming is not occurring. Yet, that entire decade collectively was the warmest on record. You cannot extrapolate that global warming or climate change is not occurring by zooming in on a single year. These are trends that are seen with time, and include not just temperatures but geographical changes as well, such as increased droughts, diminishing lakes and glaciers, and desertification.

[Toasty]

The whole idea of "global warming" is that the earth is "warming up"

Apparently, despite the fact that we continue to pour enormous amounts of CO2 into the air, global temperatures have not risen since 1998. Which was, infact, as you pointed out, the warmest on record. And we may very well be experiencing the warmest decade on record,, but if global warming is real, and is being caused by greenhouse gasses, then why haven't they been increasing steadily since the 1940's, which was when WWII happened, and the economic boom that came shortly after? There is no correlation there.


Also, and this is taken directly from the link you provided:

Quote

The UK’s top 10 warmest years on record (in order) are 2006, 2007, 2003, 2004, 2002, 2005, 1990, 1997, 1949 and 1999

Why is 1999 the warmest of the ten, and 1949 is the second warmest (and that's giving the website the benefit of the doubt, by assuming that the coldest of the top ten was first), when the temperature graph from NASA clearly states that 1999 was significantly cooler (roughly .3 degrees Celsius, in fact) than not only 1998, but also '01, '02, '03, '04, and '05, and 1949 was cooler than every year succeeding 1957? When compared against the global average, of course.

Though I suppose that the UK's average temperature could be significantly warmer than the world's average on occasion. It's not entirely impossible. It's just that according to the data provided by the website, that kinda thing seems to happen more than just occasionally. Despite the fact that the UK tends to have fairly cool temperatures,


This may be the warmest decade on record, bu the point still stands that 1998 has continued to be quite a bit warmer than every year we've had since, not to mention that global temperatures have not increased in the last decade, despite the continuing increase in CO2 emissions.

[Golden Legacy]

The entire post of yours presupposes that the global warming argument is based only on human activity and CO2 emissions. No one ever said there weren't outside factors, you're inserting that assumption on your own. That human activity has some contribution to the effect is the argument. The overall trend for the century as a whole is a net gain of about a degree or two in Celsius, so such a trend depends on how far you want to 'zoom out' and eye the change in global temperature. Pointing to every single "up" and "down" spike on a graph is a little shaky ground to be on.

Toasty, on Oct 12 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

(and that's giving the website the benefit of the doubt, by assuming that the coldest of the top ten was first)

I think it is a fairly accepted notion that when people list the the top ten of something, they begin with the first and largest value and proceed down. This would turn this:

Quote

Why is 1999 the warmest of the ten, and 1949 is the second warmest (and that's giving the website the benefit of the doubt, by assuming that the coldest of the top ten was first), when the temperature graph from NASA clearly states that 1999 was significantly cooler (roughly .3 degrees Celsius, in fact) than not only 1998, but also '01, '02, '03, '04, and '05, and 1949 was cooler than every year succeeding 1957? When compared against the global average, of course.

into a little bit of fluff, as Wind Dude would say.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 12 2009, 09:01 PM, said:

The entire post of yours presupposes that the global warming argument is based only on human activity and CO2 emissions. No one ever said there weren't outside factors, you're inserting that assumption on your own. That human activity has some contribution to the effect is the argument. The overall trend for the century as a whole is a net gain of about a degree or two in Celsius, so such a trend depends on how far you want to 'zoom out' and eye the change in global temperature. Pointing to every single "up" and "down" spike on a graph is a little shaky ground to be on.

I think it is a fairly accepted notion that when people list the the top ten of something, they begin with the first and largest value and proceed down. This would turn this:

[insert quote here]

into a little bit of fluff, as Wind Dude would say.

Regardless of what order they're in, my point still stands. Just not a prevalently.


For the past half decade or so, the global warming argument has been based around "humans contributing to global warming through green house gas emissions (i.e. carbon dioxide)," so I am well within my right to assume what I assumed.

Regardless, if it is real, and is due to human impact, what (besides CO2 emissions) would cause an increase in global temperature?

[Split Infinity]

Nothing.

Toasty, on Oct 13 2009, 02:14 PM, said:

And we may very well be experiencing the warmest decade on record,, but if global warming is real, and is being caused by greenhouse gasses, then why haven't they been increasing steadily since the 1940's, which was when WWII happened, and the economic boom that came shortly after? There is no correlation there.

That's because carbon gases hang around for years before they even reach the atmosphere. The thing about massive bodies of air is that they change slooowly; any increase or reduction in carbon emissions won't be globally noticed for ages.

Toasty, on Oct 13 2009, 02:14 PM, said:

This may be the warmest decade on record, bu the point still stands that 1998 has continued to be quite a bit warmer than every year we've had since, not to mention that global temperatures have not increased in the last decade, despite the continuing increase in CO2 emissions.

You are familiar with the concept of long-term trends, right?

[Toasty]

I don't think it takes 60, even 20 years for the air on our planet to circulate. I think you're forgetting about the jetstreams we have in our atmosphere. They do a pretty darn good job of circulating air.

[Legolastom]

Oh god, I bet your a republican, and a Christian and I bet your against gays and abortion and I bet you think Bush was great and I bet you support all the wars in the middle east, OH WAIT! We already know this about you.

Mind washed, or Brain washed? You decide!

[Laharl]

data that doesnt cover at least 10,000 years of the Earth's climate isnt even worth acknowledging, its like finding a single radioactive grain of sand in a desert and declaring the entire desert radioactive

[My Best Wishes]

Legolastom, on Oct 13 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

Oh god, I bet your a republican, and a Christian and I bet your against gays and abortion and I bet you think Bush was great and I bet you support all the wars in the middle east, OH WAIT! We already know this about you.

Mind washed, or Brain washed? You decide!

Communism; where we do the thinking so you don't have too!

[Aquamarine]

Legolastom, on Oct 13 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

Oh god, I bet your a republican, and a Christian and I bet your against gays and abortion and I bet you think Bush was great and I bet you support all the wars in the middle east, OH WAIT! We already know this about you.

Mind washed, or Brain washed? You decide!

I love you I want to suck your dick.

[King Hydros]

First let us look at the atmosphere's anatomy. I am going to ignore the surface atmosphere and jump a bit higher for right now. The air is split into cells which circulate and disibute heat on the planet. (There are three cells per-hemisphere when split horizontally. The Polar High, THe Midlatitude Cell, and The Hadley Cell.) See picture for greater detail.
http://www.ees.roche...215/fig15_1.jpg

As you can see from this Picture it takes the warm air on the surface and then moves it into the upper atmosphere. Then they brings cooler/cold(Depending on latitude) air down to the surface. The hotter the air the faster the circulation in the cells. It makes logical sense to say that the cells have been working over time in the past decade, thus actually cooling the planet in some locations. (See the various record lows set all around the world within the past decade.) This disruption in the speed of the cells has also caused some extreme weather.

I leave you with one final question. How much more heat can the Earth's thermostat take before it decides to say, "Hey, it is getting a bit too warm in here. I better thurn the air conditioner on."

I don't know about you but I am sure the Earth's air conditioner is a little more extreme, than the one attached to your house. Personally, I love the snow and frigid temperatures so I go ahead and say burn all the damn fossil fuels you want because in the end I will have my snow day.

[I'm Always BROKE]

Nah global warming isn't real. Neither is the war in the Middle East, the guys are just on a camping trip there. Poverty? Also doesn't excist. Corruption? Heard nobody complain about it.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Oct 13 2009, 03:02 AM, said:

I don't think it takes 60, even 20 years for the air on our planet to circulate. I think you're forgetting about the jetstreams we have in our atmosphere. They do a pretty darn good job of circulating air.

I think you're demanding "too much" from the results of CO2 emissions. Even an increase in 0.5 or 1 degree over a decade is significant considering it is for average temperatures across the entire planet. As Split said, the key here is to look at very long term trends.

Laharl, on Oct 13 2009, 06:16 AM, said:

data that doesnt cover at least 10,000 years of the Earth's climate isnt even worth acknowledging, its like finding a single radioactive grain of sand in a desert and declaring the entire desert radioactive

Very legitimate point.

King Hydros, on Oct 13 2009, 08:48 AM, said:

Personally, I love the snow and frigid temperatures so I go ahead and say burn all the damn fossil fuels you want because in the end I will have my snow day.

Surely you're worried about health concerns with using all those damn fossil fuels, as well as what will happen when they are used up?

[Saturos S.]

The article says that the reason that there is a global cooling at the moment is because of the PDO is cooling at the moment. That doesn't mean CO2-emission has stopped to effect are atmosphere. It just suggests that the cooling effect of the PDO is bigger than the warming up effect of the CO2-emission. So apparently there isn't a global warming at the moment, but there will be one in the future (in 20-30 years or so as the article suggests). That will be when the PDO-warming cycle starts again. If you add the heating rate that CO2-emission has, then it's likely that global warming maybe isn't happening now but when it does in the future, it will happen at a lot faster rate that natural.

So, maybe the mayhem Al Gore made with is movie isn't that justified, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't keep a close watch on the CO2-emission. It can effect the global temperatures on earth quite a lot, and it probably will in the future, let's just not make it worse that it already is.

[Mallick]

If we disappear off the face of the earth in 2012 the world will be forced into another ice age. Global cooling ftl ):

[Toasty]

Laharl, on Oct 13 2009, 03:16 AM, said:

data that doesnt cover at least 10,000 years of the Earth's climate isnt even worth acknowledging, its like finding a single radioactive grain of sand in a desert and declaring the entire desert radioactive

There's no point to look at the past 10,000 years, as most scientists who support global warming believe it's our more recent actions (i.e. past few centuries) that are causing global warming.

[Golden Legacy]

That is a good point Toasty. I do have to ask, do you completely deny that humans have any influence on global warming/climate change? Are you open to the idea that human activity may encourage temperature cycles to occur at a faster rate, or not even that?

Also, good post SS.

[Toasty]

Everything we do effects our environment. But I don't think that our activities account for even 10% of any change in global temperature. Even 5% would be a little generous. Same for any change in our climate (at least until we gain the ability to manipulate our weather at will, which would be a horrible idea).

That doesn't mean I think it's okay to cut down massive forests. We have forests specifically set aside to be harvested, replanted, and harvested again. If we need more wood, we should plant more forests that are set aside for harvesting. Rain forests and whatnot should be pretty much left alone in that respect.

I'd also like to repeat what I said earlier about emissions:
I don't think that they're the cause behind any drastic change in our climate, and while I do think it's important to control the amount and what kinds of fumes were putting into the air, I don't think it should come at a disadvantage to our country's economy (whether it should for any other country's economy is up to the people who live there).

[My Best Wishes]

If you care so much about global warming why not just kill all the cows.

[Laharl]

Toasty, on Oct 14 2009, 03:26 AM, said:

There's no point to look at the past 10,000 years, as most scientists who support global warming believe it's our more recent actions (i.e. past few centuries) that are causing global warming.

if you bothered to look at the appropriate data, you'd see the Earth's climate constantly cycles between warming and cooling periods over many millenia, the impact of humans in the last 150 years or so is minimal in comparison to the natural cycle

[King Hydros]

Good point Golden Legacy, I was ignoring the health hazards of the increased greenhouse gases. Which raises a valid point to see if there are any directly related to an increase in G.H.G.

Another point, the methane that cows produce is very trivial... Like less than 1% trivial. We can call it a fart in the wind.

[Toasty]

Laharl, on Oct 14 2009, 02:08 AM, said:

if you bothered to look at the appropriate data, you'd see the Earth's climate constantly cycles between warming and cooling periods over many millenia, the impact of humans in the last 150 years or so is minimal in comparison to the natural cycle

Which is exactly the point that I've been trying to make for the past few years. <_<

[King Hydros]

But this has not happened for a long long time, proof that it is accelerating under human caused conditions.

Artic Ice Cap, A Farwell

[Toasty]

If the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles at a fairly steady interval, then if it's late, it's either not our fault at all, or we were/have been doing something to delay global warming, rather than induce it/accelerate it.

Now if it happened sooner than expected, then it would be more likely to be due to human actions.

[My Best Wishes]

King Hydros, on Oct 15 2009, 06:29 AM, said:

Good point Golden Legacy, I was ignoring the health hazards of the increased greenhouse gases. Which raises a valid point to see if there are any directly related to an increase in G.H.G.

Another point, the methane that cows produce is very trivial... Like less than 1% trivial. We can call it a fart in the wind.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in a report called "Livestock's Long Shadow," says, "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWar...3201&page=1

[Eugine]

Well, I don't expect this to influence anyones opinion, but I have something remarkable to say that support Toasty's viewpoint.

I am surrounded by the best Meteorologists the Caribbean have daily (who are downright remarkable... Their resumes are awesome! First class honor students, PhDs, some even attended Ivy Leagues and McGill University in Canada. They are downright intimidating!), and do you know the overwhelming consensus? They all are at least skeptical of the global warming theory.

Basically, they say:
Meteorologists are skeptical, while environmental scientists are firm believers. Who would you rather believe?

[Gio]

Well hello guys. Hows it been?

Personally I have to agree with Toasty as well, and I am going to have to reiterate Eugines statement about meteorologists being skeptics. I have taken numerous meteorology courses and aeronautical courses through Embry-Riddle, and as Eugine said, they are skeptics, and I just tend to believe them and their opinions. I don't think that humans actions don't have anything to do with the eviorment. I just believe that global warming is a theory that enviormentalists are dead set or supporting for whatever reason.

The world is going to go to hell in a hand basket anyway, so there really isn't any use in us concerning ourselves with how it will happen.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 15 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

Meteorologists are skeptical, while environmental scientists are firm believers. Who would you rather believe?

Not that meteorologists should not be "believed" (quite the contrary), but could you and Gio tell us how much of the day to day work of a meteorologist is in determining weather, not climate? Actually, since you two both have experience in this area, what is the focus of meteorology specifically?

You know, the implications of human activity go far, far beyond global warming or more broadly climate change. As Saturos Striker said earlier, even if you are "skeptical", there is no point in actually insisting that there is no improvement, no refinement to be had of human actions against the environment. Why not lower carbon emissions, if nothing else to avoid the increasing health complications occurring around the globe? Why not reduce pollution and protect forests, if nothing else for the long term ecological security for the organisms that rely on it?

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 15 2009, 06:50 PM, said:

You know, the implications of human activity go far, far beyond global warming or more broadly climate change. As Saturos Striker said earlier, even if you are "skeptical", there is no point in actually insisting that there is no improvement, no refinement to be had of human actions against the environment. Why not lower carbon emissions, if nothing else to avoid the increasing health complications occurring around the globe? Why not reduce pollution and protect forests, if nothing else for the long term ecological security for the organisms that rely on it?

I completely agree with that statement. There is always room for improvement in every aspect of life, if it only to improve for the sake of improving. I was just merely addressing Toasty's original post whether it existed or not.

As for meteorologist predicting weather and not climate. I think that weather has a larger impact on climate than human actions, and therefore they would likely have a better understanding than most people.

[Golden Legacy]

I never said that meteorologists would not have a better understanding - on the contrary. I was just asking the both of you if a meteorologist focuses more on the weather (short-term, immediate trends) than broader climate. I'm sure they are well aware of both, and more than the average person, but there are people who call themselves "climatologists" and I'm just wondering what the distinction is.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 15 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

You know, the implications of human activity go far, far beyond global warming or more broadly climate change. As Saturos Striker said earlier, even if you are "skeptical", there is no point in actually insisting that there is no improvement, no refinement to be had of human actions against the environment. Why not lower carbon emissions, if nothing else to avoid the increasing health complications occurring around the globe? Why not reduce pollution and protect forests, if nothing else for the long term ecological security for the organisms that rely on it?

I agree. I just don't think it's right for the government to enforce (or encourage) higher gas prices to counteract CO2 emissions, or to enforce unreasonable restrictions that car manufacturers have to adhere to (which in turn druves up prices), or to restrict oil companies from drilling in say, Alaska, and all of these other things that environmentalists are trying to do for the sake of "preventing global warming."

I'm all for being green, as long as it doesn't come at a severe cost to my wallet, or my way of living (I can stand small things like taking shorter showers, or shutting off the lights/appliances when not in use, among other things though).

I just don't want environmentalists to use the threat of global warming to push their agendas, because there;s plenty of data by respectable sources that refutes global warming. And honestly, the "Threat of global warming" is really only being used nowadays to push environmentalists' agendas, because it's such an effective card to play. Of course they're going to do everything they can to make people believe that it's a real threat.


I don't mind too much, however, if they decide to use the threat of actual environmental hazards to try and persuade people to do something about it. Acid rain is a real, actual problem in cities/states that have large populations, and also happen to have problems with smog. That's just an example though. There's other problems out there that need addressing too.

[Eugine]

I'm no expert...
(maybe I'll be in a few years? will be cool!)
But, from what I gathered at my school, most Climatologists are Meteorologists. They get their bachelors in Met (or Maths and Physics, Environmental Science) and Masters in Climatology.

And despite being skeptical, most believe doing nothing is far worse than doing something. Actually, the skeptics are the one trying to get funding for green technologies in the Caribbean vehemently... You'd think they are firm believers.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 15 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

I never said that meteorologists would not have a better understanding - on the contrary. I was just asking the both of you if a meteorologist focuses more on the weather (short-term, immediate trends) than broader climate. I'm sure they are well aware of both, and more than the average person, but there are people who call themselves "climatologists" and I'm just wondering what the distinction is.

Well sure. I am sure there are meteorologist that study long-term trends, and changes in weather and there are ones study short term. They all study different things. My meteorology teacher, was actually an expert on severe storms, such as tornados and hurricanes. So given that bit of info I am sure there are many different types of meteorologists. I mean I haven't exactly met a climatologist. I was only speaking of my experience.

[Eugine]

Meteorology is soo broad.
You can be a Forecaster (eg the guy you see on TV), Agrometeorologist (Agriculture), Climatologist, Satellite Meteorologist, Aviation Meteorologist, and more... And even what Gio mentioned.

It's broader than it seems.