Spot the global warming

Here's the history of the Earth's temperature. If you can spot this manmade out of control end of the world global warming thing in it then please point it out to me.




















My opinion.
-Is the earth warming? Yes.
-Is CO2 the cause? No, CO2 i an effect created by warming. (the ocean, the worlds largest reservoir of CO2 releases CO2 when it get's warmer.)
-What is the cause? The Sun. The Sun's activity and our climate are very intimately connected.
-Is it something to worry about? Yes and no.
Yes, well not because we are the cause, we aren't (though pollution can't be good for other reasons) but yes it can affect human life. But don't go lose any sleep over it, it's part of the Earth's cycles. It's been warmer here then it is now, it's been far colder too but life is still here. The Earth won't die because of us and if we were a threat we could be blinked out of existence no problem. We are however a threat to animal life. Which is a shame.
Regardless that we aren't the cause of global warming (how self important is that?) we should take care of this little gem we have. We tell ourselves that we are more then animals. Let's be more then.

Sun and Climate:


[Mod please resize the graphs that are too large, I can't get it to adjust width.]

[edit on 3/6/2007 by David2012]

I'll focus on the only graph that actually supports you argument.

The solar graph from Soon & Baliunas is taken from Friss & Christensen. This data is incorrect, they made simple errors in calculation. Damon & Laut (2004) show why and carry the corrected data.

Current data shows that solar-temperature relationships broke down in the latter part of the 20th century. From a recent Sami Solanki study:



Same figure but nicer to look at:



I could go through all the other stuff you've posted, but I have a pile of marking I need to do, but just one more:

The penultimate graph is taken from Lamb (1990), which was used in an early IPCC report. It was based on data from central England, and is pretty obsolete. A dozen high resolution multiple-proxy reconstructions have been developed in the last 10 years, all show that current warming is greater than at any point in 1000 years.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by melatonin]

My graps support my argument.

Your graph is too limited in time it doesn't go back far enough to show the cycle.

I didn't photoshop the graphs to explain better as I wanted them to show the sources.

the peak we are seeing we have seen numerous times when you go back further in time then your graph. (recheck my graphs that go back 450000+ years.

The point is that we aren't the cause. And definately not our CO2 output which is only a 0.12% share in the total CO2 output on this planet and CO2 not being that important a greenhouse gas, CO2 rises lag behind a few hundred years to the warming hence it's an effect.

besides that I didn't as much make a case as ask a question one which you did not answer.

[edit on 3/6/2007 by David2012]

[edit on 3/6/2007 by David2012]

Originally posted by David2012
My graps support my argument.

Your graph is too limited in time it doesn't go back far enough to show the cycle.

And your graph is incorrect for the period that is important. The correlation between solar irradiance and global climate broke down in the latter period of the 20th. It's got nothing to do with how far we go back, I don't have an issue with solar effects driving climate in the 18th century, the important period is the 20th century.

The point is that we aren't the cause. And definately not our CO2 output which is only a 0.12% share in the total CO2 output on this planet and CO2 not being that important a greenhouse gas, CO2 rises lag behind a few hundred years to the warming hence it's an effect.

The lag is not an issue, we don't expect CO2 to be the initiator of glacial cycles. We expect something like orbital variations to initiate warming, this warming eventually triggers the release of GHGs from the biosphere (CO2 and methane), which then causes further warming. It's generally known as a positive feedback.

The 0.12% figure is based on some very poor mathematics and misleading approaches. Each year we produce about 7 GtC, about 50% accumulates to give the rise we see every year. The yearly rise is almost completely due to human activity. The remaining ca. 50% is removed by the ocean and terrestrial sinks.

The only argument you have is based on current warming being solar-mediated. You presented a ton of graphs, but only a one comes close to supporting the argument, however, that happens to have errors during the important period.

The correct data is presented above. Why does the correlation break down in the latter 20th century?

[edit on 3-6-2007 by melatonin]

OK. I'm here to learn so I'll check up on that. I used to be on the side of manmade warming but recently have these doubts. This is why I posted this here. Maybe spark the discussion that clears some of it for me.

I'm not even dead set on the sun being the sole cause. But I do see a cycle in the temperature data that sugests to me that this is a normal process that would happen even if we did not exist. The speed of change might be diffferent etc. But it would still slowly rise and eventually fall again.

I'm beginning to doubt our influence in it all. We're so temporary viewing time from the Earth's viewpoint. 'She' won't die from it, we might but life will flourish some time after that again. I'm wondering if we're not just overestimating our part in it. The human need to feel overly important? Look at the sudden warmings in history they are just as steep as it is now but we weren't mass producing etc. yet. And the gradual warming up to the 20th century before industrialisation. warming had already begun. At least seems so to me.

I'm not arguing that we need to think and even plan ahead. I'm pro clean lifestyles. But I'm merely having doubts about our part in it.

Another question, if the current warming is purely manmade (the propaganda) then why are other planets warming now too?

[edit on 5/6/2007 by David2012]

Originally posted by David2012
Another question, if the current warming is purely manmade (the propaganda) then why are other planets warming now too?

Well, the first thing to understand is that no-one seriously suggests that current warming is purely anthropogenic, just a significant amount. This includes GHG and other human effects (deforestation etc).

As for other planets warming, most of the warming on the few examples that actually are is most likely nothing to do with what is causing warming here. Climate change can be caused by various variables (e.g. orbital variations, 'seasons', dust storms). Each of these planets/moons are different and the same is true for their climate dynamics.

Dust storms on mars

[edit on 5-6-2007 by melatonin]

I agree completely with the "and" as in not just our influence.
I still doubt about how significant our influence is.
I'm not arrogant about my species, I actually don't even think we are currently numero uno on this planet since despite our large brains we are acting pretty stupid as a species. And with so many facors, on this planet, the solar system, that huge ball of fusion reactions and influences we don't even know about yet like galactic influences. If pluto and mars are warming then that surely is also a part of the reason why the earth does (if mars and pluto that far apart are suffering an effect from a common cause then the earth will too.. distance between mars and earth is a lot less hen mars and pluto )

The sun will reach solar max around (hate that date) 2012 how does that tie in with the warming trend?

iow how significant is that significant part we play in it?
I'd wish we had the biggest part in it all, then there'd be a slight chance that we will actually do something about it and succeed. It just sounds so unlikely lately.

Before you start bunking the data you might want to look the temperature data from both parts of the globe and not just from england. The temperature is actually dropping on the southern hemisphere while its raising here on the northern hemisphere. But hey why look at the data from both sides of the globe as you can make it look like something terrible is happening and blame co2 when you can ignore half of the data make it fit your personal agenda.

Oh and if the warming is greater than in 1000 years what happened to the warm period in the beginning of last millenium and did the mini iceage also not happen?




Oh he is a graph how much heat co2 actually absorbs that the water vapors cant get. I would like to mention the fact that water is at around 40000 parts per million where co2 is still at under 400 and its apparently extremely high at the moment?

And of that 400 parts 5% is man made so yeah clearly we are doomed and the heat is because our man-made co2.

[edit on 7/6/07 by Gonjo]

Originally posted by Gonjo
Before you start bunking the data you might want to look the temperature data from both parts of the globe and not just from england. The temperature is actually dropping on the southern hemisphere while its raising here on the northern hemisphere. But hey why look at the data from both sides of the globe as you can make it look like something terrible is happening and blame co2 when you can ignore half of the data make it fit your personal agenda.

OK, I'm looking at the data. This is from NASA-GISS:


data.giss.nasa.gov...

Seems to be increasing in both hemispheres...

[edit on 7-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by David2012
If pluto and mars are warming then that surely is also a part of the reason why the earth does (if mars and pluto that far apart are suffering an effect from a common cause then the earth will too.. distance between mars and earth is a lot less hen mars and pluto

)

There are about 60 major bodies in the solar system, it's not surprising a few of them are warming. They can only do one of three things - warm, cool, stay the same.

The problem is that to warm Pluto ca. 2'C would take a very large increase in Solar activity, we would certainly notice it.

The sun will reach solar max around (hate that date) 2012 how does that tie in with the warming trend?

If solar activity starts to increase significantly, we will see a warmer climate. If CO2 keeps increasing, we will see a warmer climate. If both happen, we will see a very warm climate very quickly.

iow how significant is that significant part we play in it?
I'd wish we had the biggest part in it all, then there'd be a slight chance that we will actually do something about it and succeed. It just sounds so unlikely lately.

Depends who you ask. Pielke Sr. suggests about 25-30%, IPCC about 40-50% IIRC, other respectable climate scientists suggest much more than that.

A few contrarians suggest it is non-significant, but they can't really support such a claim.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by melatonin]

www.mongabay.com...

Yes lets continue to look at these magical pictures of truth, like the one above. I mean there really wasnt a mini-iceage or mideval warming period in the beginning of the last millenia right?

Yes the temperature is raising from the 1800-> we are recovering from a mini-iceage which might have something to do with it... But hey why look at the big picture and how things actually work. We can all just look at the data that tells us, hmm yes we are getting warmer but its clearly not because of the sun cause we have this thing called co2 which we can start to blame it on. Yes lets do that.

There is no doubt the temperature is rising the problem is its no where near what it was or we wouldnt be discovering old silver mines from under the ice from couple hundred years back that are now melting for example. If you look at the data from the last 150years, yes the climate is warming. If you look at the data from south and north you might catch on the reason of the warming. If you look the actual data and historic evidence from the beginning of the last millenia or even from the mini-iceage we are no where near those temperatures or amounts of co for that matter.

I really dont see the point to continue this fighting over the matter however. If you want to see just the data from the people building the co2 models who ignore irrelevant stuff like water and sun from their models theres not much of a point really. And yes lets ignore the solar activity data because there are some parts of it that dont match 100% from the last couple years. I mean who cares the data is accurate from the day it was collected if you compare it to the temperatures.

Oh one thing more. Why did the temperature drop from 1940 to 1970 even though the co2 started to really build up after 1950. And when the temperature started to increase again slightly after the 1970 it didnt shoot up like the co2 it started to climb at the same speed it did before the 1940 drop?

[edit on 7/6/07 by Gonjo]

Originally posted by Gonjo
www.mongabay.com...

Yes lets continue to look at these magical pictures of truth, like the one above. I mean there really wasnt a mini-iceage or mideval warming period in the beginning of the last millenia right?

These was warming and cooling in certain areas, yes. If we look at numerous reconstructions as a whole we can see these periods did show some variation in climate. But it was not of the same extent as current climate change. The MWP and LIA were most likely not as synchronous or to the same spatial extent as the current change. And it seems the MWP was not as warm as it is now in the northern hemisphere.

You could also make show some acceptance that your claim of southern hemsphere cooling was incorrect...

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Gonjo
www.mongabay.com...

Yes lets continue to look at these magical pictures of truth, like the one above. I mean there really wasnt a mini-iceage or mideval warming period in the beginning of the last millenia right?

These was warming and cooling in certain areas, yes. If we look at numerous reconstructions as a whole we can see these periods did show some variation in climate. But it was not of the same extent as current climate change. The MWP and LIA were most likely not as synchronous or to the same spatial extent as the current change. And it seems the MWP was not as warm as it is now in the northern hemisphere.

You could also make show some acceptance that your claim of southern hemsphere cooling was incorrect...

Oh so you are claiming it is just as hot on the southern hemisphere as it is on the nothern one? I mean we are talking about global phenomenon here and as co2 is the reason behind the warming and it is evenly distributed through the globe one might think the globe would warm evenly. But apparently it didnt "feel" like it. Also southern hemisphere is the part taking the most of the solar radiation so it seems a bit odd that it is cooler if co2 is behind the heating up. I mean one might think that if you have global increase GHG that GHG would heat up the globe evenly or more on the south side as thats the side getting most of the radiation and heat.

Oh and you didnt find anything odd about the official chart I linked on my last post as it seems to be missing the warming periods and mini-iceage we had? Nothing fishy there...

If the MWP wasnt as high in temperature as we "knew" couple years ago I guess you have a good reason why the whole of england was filled with wineyards, the greenland was farmed by these people called vikings and we had olives produced in germany?

Yeah lets forget everything we know and look at a computer model and say: Naaah our history and data was wrong this model is correct.

[edit on 7/6/07 by Gonjo]

Originally posted by Gonjo
Oh so you are claiming it is just as hot on the southern hemisphere as it is on the nothern one?

I was answering your incorrect claim that the southern hemisphere was cooling.

If you look at the data, you might get your answer.

Also southern hemisphere is the part taking the most of the solar radiation so it seems a bit odd that it is cooler if co2 is behind the heating up. I mean one might think that if you have global increase GHG that GHG would heat up the globe evenly or more on the south side as thats the side getting most of the radiation and heat.

But that assumes that the only thing that affects climate is CO2, which is untrue. It is also obvious that the southern hemisphere has less land mass and has slightly different climate dynamics to the north.

Oh and you didnt find anything odd about the official chart I linked on my last post as it seems to be missing the warming periods and mini-iceage we had? Nothing fishy there...

If the MWP wasnt as high in temperature as we "knew" couple years ago I guess you have a good reason why the whole of england was filled with wineyards, the greenland was farmed by these people called vikings and we had olives produced in germany?

The data you posted speaks for itself. The proxies that were under examination showed minimal variations during the MWP and LIA. That is one study. If we look at the most recent IPCC report, it contains a dozen major multi-proxy reconstructions, some show more variation than others:



If we take them as a whole, there was probably some warming during the MWP and some cooling during the LIA. But it was probably happening at different places at different times, so when averaged over space, it doesn't look so significant.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by melatonin]

Well ofcourse ICPP is clearly the the bible on this matter. Why would anyone actually look at the data we had earlier when we have alot of new "data" from them which must be the only source when we look at the problem and taken without any thought or doubt. You might wanna check some of the bull they are spewing. Like the fact that there is no H2O in their model of global warming gasses and they dont think sun has alot to do with it, CO2 on the other hand is the thing they have really looked into and it seems it is indeed pretty much the reason behind all of our troubles.

[edit on 8/6/07 by Gonjo]

Originally posted by Gonjo
Like the fact that there is no H2O in their model of global warming gasses and they dont think sun has alot to do with it, CO2 on the other hand is the thing they have really looked into and it seems it is indeed pretty much the reason behind all of our troubles.

This is quite incorrect. The predictions of models contain a significant positive feedback from water vapour. A doubling of CO2 is predicted to result in about 1'C alone, positive feedback will push this up to about 3'C.

Originally posted by melatonin

The 0.12% figure is based on some very poor mathematics and misleading approaches. Each year we produce about 7 GtC, about 50% accumulates to give the rise we see every year. The yearly rise is almost completely due to human activity. The remaining ca. 50% is removed by the ocean and terrestrial sinks.

The analogy I like to use is this:

Imagine a tub of water, almost full. There's a tap running and a hole in the bottom of the tub. At the moment, as much water enters from the tap as leaves via the hole.

Now, suppose someone comes along and starts adding a thimble full of water very day.

Will the tub overflow? And if it does, will it be because of the running tap or the tiny thimble?

I appreciate that the atmosphere is a little more complicated, but it gives you the idea of how just a small change in equilibrium can have a big end result.

Of course, the situation is further complicated by the fact that CO2 and subsequent temp rises is only one part of anthropogenic climate change - other aspects rarely if ever get raised by the 'contrarians'. Maybe one of them could show us how destroying most of the world's rain forests doesn't have any impact on climate? (you'd have to refute the tropical water cycle and cloud formation, amongst other things).

Also, do those who refuse to accept that an increase ion CO2 can affect temp also refute the idea that, for example, increased aerosols produced by industrial processes have any effect?

(Incidentally, the dip in temps in the 40s-70s - as everyone who studies the subjects objectively knows - was caused by the fact that as CO2 levels rose so too did aerosols. These caused a cooled effect. However, aerosols are short lived in the atmosphere and in the west at least we've drastically reduced the amount we produce. Thus, with CO2 emissions continuing to rise, they've overtaken the cooling effect of aerosols. )

No the tub will never get full because co2 isnt something that never dissipates. Just like the water in the tub will "magically" evaporate. The assumption that we can do anything to affect the long time weather patterns by adding minute amounts of natural gas that is being randomly emitted by the planet from infinate amount of sources is hilarious. Maybe you can tell me how the temperature took a dive through 1940-1980 even though thats the time co2 which is supposedly the reason behind all our problem being really spewed out there.

Not to mention the fact that the air sampling data collected from since the 1800 shows that we were actually way higher on co2 (500pp,+) back then than the icecore data we are being shown as accurate and factual even though the man who actually collected says has been cooked up to make a policy. Same way they now show on their new temperature data how we are at record highs on temperature and co2 when their own data from few years back show the complete opposite. Surprisingly this new data is until 1900 taken from icecore, coral and treerings.

Up until 1980 they combine the two data sets and as one would predict happens. When you combine those extremely vague and inacurate data sources with the actual temperatures measures shockingly the actual temperature acts like it should and there are ups and downs.

Now ofcourse people in the 1800 didnt know how to open a can and close it. They didnt also know how to check the temperature even though they did have the equipment to do this. No no we look at the data from trees, ice and coral and ignore the actual co2 and temperature measurements and go with the guestimations from ice,trees and coral.

Now if that makes any sense to anyone who might be interested to see a long term variation we have had on CO2 and Temperature with accurate data then I truly feel for you. But hey its the end of the world as we know it, we must act know. Dont mind about the fact that the data shown to us is total bogus cooked up to make up their case on CO2 causing a man made global warming.

[edit on 8/6/07 by Gonjo]

PDF of measured CO2 from 1800

Spot the steadily increasing CO2 due to man.




Image for those who just want a picture of the chart with the measured CO2 from the above document.

[edit on 10/6/07 by Gonjo]

Originally posted by Gonjo
Maybe you can tell me how the temperature took a dive through 1940-1980 even though thats the time co2 which is supposedly the reason behind all our problem being really spewed out there.

Aerosols

Not to mention the fact that the air sampling data collected from since the 1800 shows that we were actually way higher on co2 (500pp,+)

Beck's study is much disputed - by many sceptics as well as those who believe in AGW.

If you measure CO2 in the centre of London today, for example, I bet it's more than 500ppm ....