bigdavediode: This isn't a recent discovery, but it seems that this old fact along with the corrected LTU2 satellite data, has utterly eluded the anti-global warming creation labs scientists.

Explain why CO2 emissions are going up while temperature is going down:

More to the point, Boca, just because some warming is not man-made does not mean all warming is not man made.

That's called a fallacy of composition. It's not logic and it makes no sense.

sip111: nicksteel: BergZ: The skeptic's paradox:
(a) The Greenhouse theory states that greenhouse gases raise the average surface temperature of the planet by ~32°C
and
(b) That adding more of the same greenhouse gases, which are responsible for "a", will not lead to an increase in global surface temperature

Believing (a) and (b) simultaneously is contradictory! One of the two must be false (without some, as of yet, unknown "c" factor).

If you know what the "c" factor is, please: Explain what that mechanism is, how it works, what data you've collected on it, and what peer reviewed journals of climatology you've published your findings in.

Todate the skeptic's paradox goes unanswered.

you aren't been looking at the real "problem". Your handlers have you all pumped up about CO2 increases causing the temperature increases.

Co2 is a minor green house Gas. 95% of the Green house gas is water vapor. With green house warming you get the higher warming in the middle of the troposphere than on the surface. Green house gases trap the heat from solar radiation. If it were not for these gases the heat would deflect back into space. If green house gas is causing the warming then it should prove to be a higher temperature in the middle of the troposphere. There are two ways to take the atmospheres temperature, satellite and weather balloons. Both ways show that the surface has a higher temperature than the upper air temperatures. The hypothesis of man made global warming is false in its premise. If the premise is false the theory is false. The evidence shows this clearly. Has co2 ever driven climate change? Scientist have drilled deep into the ice and discovered a connection between Co2 and the earth's temperature. Professor Ian Clark an artic climate paleontologist and others have shown that the Ice core data shows that as temperature rises or falls, a few hundred years later Co2 follows. Co2 is a product of temperature. The theory that says co2 causes temperature to rise is shown to be wrong.

I said it earlier about the only "positions" you could muster would be pathetic wwwhhhhaaagggaaarrbbblee objections which would only demonstrate your own lack of understanding... And in your case not only in an embarrassing copy-paste noobish fashion, Greenhouse Nonsense is it, but moreover the information contained therein is just plain misleading and wrong. Exactly like, as I preempted you with, the misrepresenting that goes on between creationist and biology, geology, etc.

Just plain silly some of the things you've said (copy *cough* pasted *cough*), really silly, the same type of retarded assumptions that creationists make about geologists, chemists, and their dating techniques. It's halirious, it's as if the idiots *really* believe their the one's calling something to the scientists attention (always too happy to bastardize what it means to be a "skeptic"), as if they hadn't already given it thought. Also it's just plain sad because I had a slight hope that may be, just may be, you weren't a troll, or a total idiot, or a silly crackpot, unfortunately you're among the ranks now. There's skinnyhead, bevets, and you, yes you, nicksteel.

Next time just quote from here. At least then we'll all get a good laugh, and you won't have wasted our time.

good for you!!! no cognitive argument rebutting anything I posted, just a disclaimer that it is wrong. Why should anybody believe you without anything to support your position?

Gee, did that sound like I called you a liar??

bigdavediode: More to the point, Boca, just because some warming is not man-made does not mean all warming is not man made.

That's not what the theory dictates. It states that as CO2 levels increase, temperature will subsequently increase. Since that's not happening, I think it's time to set aside the idea that global warming is driven by CO2 emissions, since the last 7 years do not indicate this.

Boca:

"Explain why CO2 emissions are going up while temperature is going down:"

Because you picked as your start point an el-nino year and you picked an insufficient sample size. To fill out a standard distribution with any confidence you need a sample size of at least 30. Since we're discussing years into the future, you'll need a minimum sample size of thirty. Cherry picking el-nino years and tiny sample sizes is only done to manipulate.

It's the kind of thing Exxon would do if it were funding the graph, for example.

alostpacket: Nicksteel is copying and pasting whargarble from blogs by the way, just search some of the text from his posts.

So what??? Is the information wrong???? Why do you green weenies always attack the source but never the information??? Is it because you are all too stupid to mount an intelligent argument??

Bocanegra: bigdavediode: Global average temperatures do not refer to Boston, Phoenix or Yonkers. Surprisingly, Boston et al are not the globe.

Just for you, because you tend to be extra special:

The graph I posted above is entitled "Monthly GLOBAL temperature v.s. CO2"

Don't make me repeat it again, biatch.

Your troll-fu is weak, Bocanegra.

It's like nicksteel switched alts and instead of the copy pasta we have disingenuous graphs and mouth-frothing idiocy.

Thanks for making Fark a better place.

Oh good we have both of them.

Bocanegra: Explain why CO2 emissions are going up while temperature is going down:


Let me take a stab at this. 10 years simply isn't an appropriate time frame to look at. This (new window) is an accessible, and elegant explanation of why. The "trend" downward that you are referring to could be considered simply 'noise', in this case, shorter-term variation that we aren't all that interested in.

BergZ: BergZ: nicksteel (favorite: Global Warming "truther") 2009-07-25 09:39:18 PM
It is clear, from your replies, that you are ignorant of the fact that carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. Statement "a" takes the effect of all greenhouse gases -- including (but not limited to) carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour, etc -- in aggregate.

In none of your 3 replies did you come anywhere close to explaining what the, currently unknown, "c" factor (which would resolve the paradox) is, how it works, what data you've collected on it, and what peer reviewed journals of climatology you've published your findings in.

The paradox goes unanswered.

There is nothing in any statement that I made that would lead an intelligent person to the position that I believe that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas. In fact, there is nothing that I have stated that SHOULD lead an idiot to that position, so how did you do it??

bigdavediode: It's the kind of thing Exxon would do if it were funding the graph, for example.

Oh here we go. Talk about fallacies. This is a prime example of an ad hominem fallacy. If a group funds a study, attack the group and discount the finding based on perceived bias. That's grand.

By the way, you haven't answered why the earth has been cooling while CO2 has been going up. Nice try though.

nicksteel: So what??? Is the information wrong???? Why do you green weenies always attack the source but never the information??? Is it because you are all too stupid to mount an intelligent argument??

1/10 You need more question marks.

Damnhippyfreak: shorter-term variation that we aren't all that interested in.

Why not? If the earth started cooling 10 years ago you would say "We need 20 more years to prove a cooling trend".

It doesnt fit the hypothesis. If CO2 is going up, temperature will go up regardless of the amount of sampled time. Why would it not?

Boca:

"Oh here we go. Talk about fallacies. This is a prime example of an ad hominem fallacy. If a group funds a study, attack the group and discount the finding based on perceived bias. That's grand."

Uhhh, no. I haven't attacked the group that produced the graph. That was a hypothetical regarding the graph intended to manipulate which you posted.

By the way, you haven't answered why the earth has been cooling while CO2 has been going up. Nice try though.

It hasn't. I can't make my answer any simpler than that. Your graph is misleading.

alostpacket: nicksteel: So what??? Is the information wrong???? Why do you green weenies always attack the source but never the information??? Is it because you are all too stupid to mount an intelligent argument??

1/10 You need more question marks.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????

bigdavediode: Your graph is misleading.



Just answer the question. I'll read it in the morning. Maybe I'll wake up and you'll magically be less stupid/brainwashed/subject of groupthink.

Bocanegra:

By the way, you haven't answered why the earth has been cooling while CO2 has been going up.

Because it hasn't.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the - art-of-model-data-comparison/ (new window)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mind-the-gap/ (new window)


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stoppe d -in-1998.html (new window)

http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/ (new window)

Bocanegra: If CO2 is going up, temperature will go up regardless of the amount of sampled time. Why would it not?

Because it's a multivariate system with variation within the trend. It's pretty clear that you lack a firm knowledge of the science of both climate and statistics.

canyoneer: Let's recap: The temperature record may be overstated.

Let's stop right there. Because to go any father I would have to believe there's a vast conspiracy to falsify all temperature data.

And if you are not denying that there has been warming in last 50 years, and want me to accept that it is not due to human activity then provide a reason other than 'it happened before.'

Because for me to do that would be necessary to deny something that based on empirical reason for the cause in favor of an undefined, unknown something else. That would require a faith based thinking.

nicksteel: sip111: nicksteel: BergZ: The skeptic's paradox:
(a) The Greenhouse theory states that greenhouse gases raise the average surface temperature of the planet by ~32°C
and
(b) That adding more of the same greenhouse gases, which are responsible for "a", will not lead to an increase in global surface temperature

Believing (a) and (b) simultaneously is contradictory! One of the two must be false (without some, as of yet, unknown "c" factor).

If you know what the "c" factor is, please: Explain what that mechanism is, how it works, what data you've collected on it, and what peer reviewed journals of climatology you've published your findings in.

Todate the skeptic's paradox goes unanswered.

you aren't been looking at the real "problem". Your handlers have you all pumped up about CO2 increases causing the temperature increases.

Co2 is a minor green house Gas. 95% of the Green house gas is water vapor. With green house warming you get the higher warming in the middle of the troposphere than on the surface. Green house gases trap the heat from solar radiation. If it were not for these gases the heat would deflect back into space. If green house gas is causing the warming then it should prove to be a higher temperature in the middle of the troposphere. There are two ways to take the atmospheres temperature, satellite and weather balloons. Both ways show that the surface has a higher temperature than the upper air temperatures. The hypothesis of man made global warming is false in its premise. If the premise is false the theory is false. The evidence shows this clearly. Has co2 ever driven climate change? Scientist have drilled deep into the ice and discovered a connection between Co2 and the earth's temperature. Professor Ian Clark an artic climate paleontologist and others have shown that the Ice core data shows that as temperature rises or falls, a few hundred years later Co2 follows. Co2 is a product of temperature. The theory that says co2 causes temperature to rise is shown to be wrong.

I said it earlier about the only "positions" you could muster would be pathetic wwwhhhhaaagggaaarrbbblee objections which would only demonstrate your own lack of understanding... And in your case not only in an embarrassing copy-paste noobish fashion, Greenhouse Nonsense is it, but moreover the information contained therein is just plain misleading and wrong. Exactly like, as I preempted you with, the misrepresenting that goes on between creationist and biology, geology, etc.

Just plain silly some of the things you've said (copy *cough* pasted *cough*), really silly, the same type of retarded assumptions that creationists make about geologists, chemists, and their dating techniques. It's halirious, it's as if the idiots *really* believe their the one's calling something to the scientists attention (always too happy to bastardize what it means to be a "skeptic"), as if they hadn't already given it thought. Also it's just plain sad because I had a slight hope that may be, just may be, you weren't a troll, or a total idiot, or a silly crackpot, unfortunately you're among the ranks now. There's skinnyhead, bevets, and you, yes you, nicksteel.

Next time just quote from here. At least then we'll all get a good laugh, and you won't have wasted our time.

good for you!!! no cognitive argument rebutting anything I posted, just a disclaimer that it is wrong. Why should anybody believe you without anything to support your position?

Gee, did that sound like I called you a liar??

Does it matter if you did?

There's enough information in the thread already to debunk your crackpot nonsense. The fact that I should need to make a "cognitive argument" pointing out how off you (or whomever you plagiarized was) is missing the boat.

Your "objections" are amongst the most noobish.

The vids come with citations(wowwee), which is more than you offered, now go and point out wherein their measurement (in the papers cited) taking was faulty and why it would be too far a "stretch" to say what they do about CO2 mathematically using statistical analysis. You know, show where the Epsilons make a trend line, where one of the four assumptions underlining their stats work is wrong, do some actual work rather than *your* *bare* "objections," impress me. Or don't.

I like it warmer. Even if AGW was real, I wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it.

Bocanegra: Damnhippyfreak: shorter-term variation that we aren't all that interested in.

Why not? If the earth started cooling 10 years ago you would say "We need 20 more years to prove a cooling trend".

It doesnt fit the hypothesis. If CO2 is going up, temperature will go up regardless of the amount of sampled time. Why would it not?


Sorry for the delay.The first bit is exactly what I'm saying. 10 years is simply not enough time given climate variablity.

As for the second bit, simply put, because CO₂ isn't the only factor at work in terms of temperature or climate. ENSO, for example. One can also use an example that you're familiar with - think about the temperature change due to seasonality. That alone speaks against your assertion.

the biggest redneck here: Unbiased hunters know that massive changes are underfoot. In my neck of the woods (northwest VA), we have canvasbacks and pintails (the earliest nesting ducks in North America) moving north in January. Years ago, the Chesapeake was healthy and ducks had no damn reason to be on this side of the state. And they sure as hell weren't moving north in JANUARY. An older friend of mine has photos from opening day of deer season (mid-November) in Wisconsin from the vast majority of the last 60 years. In all of the early ones, the river behind his camp was frozen. open water the past couple decades.

"Science" isn't needed, you just have to walk outside and take notice.

/don't even get me started with all the crazy shiat I've seen lately as part of the commercial fishing industry

The same goes for the Pacific NW. We have a shiat load of new plant species that previously couldn't survive in this climate. Our temperate climate has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. Talk with anyone who's worked in a greenhouse around here and they'll name off dozens of new flora that now acclimate here due to the lack of hard frosts. Non-invasive species changes are usually measured in centuries, not years.

Bocanegra: True. I won't deny that. But if CO2 emissions are going up, which they are, wouldn't temperature correspondingly go up? Since it is not, what would you say is the reason for that?

The principle of superposition.

There's not one single system that drives temperature, but rather a bunch of different things all happening at once CO₂ is happening on a long time scale, but there are plenty of other effects -- from El Niño to volcanic eruptions to changes in the solar cycle to simply variations in weather -- that will cause a lot of "noise" if you're looking year by year.

That's why you need a lot of data and to look for slower, sustained changes. If possible (as in the case of solar irradiance) parameters can be directly measured so that their contribution to each year's temperature can be directly known.

The important thing to note is that factors like ocean currents and weather will average out to zero over long periods of time -- that is, their combined effects can be modeled as random fluctuations around a central baseline temperature. They don't shift that baseline temperature itself.

Temperature doesn't monotonically increase because of these random year-to-year fluctuations; you may have an unusually cold year followed by an unusually warm or vice versa.

Think of it like money. Say that every year, you get exactly $500 as a raise for the next year. But each year, your expenses are not the same -- maybe in one year your car needs $3000 in repairs so you spend more than usual, and in another year gas prices are unusually low so you spend less than usual. In this hypothetical, inflation doesn't exist and your lifestyle remains the same.

If you look at the amount of money you have left over at the end of each year, it will vary a lot based on chance -- how many different expenses you had during that year and how much they were for. So it's not necessarily true that each year you will end up with $500 more left over than you had the previous year. Over a long period of time that will hold, but it won't hold for each individual year.

Damnhippyfreak: And what do you believe was the amount of change during the so-called "The Little Ice Age"? The most I've heard as much as 0.2 degrees C. What we're talking about in terms of ACC is a magnitude higher, and relatively sustained, not just for "a decade or two". Be also careful in that I claimed that of primary concern is the rate of temperature change - the amount of change as well as well as a potential for a long-term, baseline shift is of course of concern as well.

First of all referring to a well documented and completely accurate historic event as "so called" doesn't exactly make you look very well informed. This "so called" war we had with Japan and Germany back in the 40s as it were.

It was significant enough of a climate change to drop the population of several countries by no small margin and cause glaciers to advance far enough to crush villages. Since it is unlikely that a village was built a few feet from a glacier think about that for a moment.

There have been several periods of warming followed by longer periods of cooling going back, so far as we know, to the 1300s. Some of these changes were rather abrupt in terms of earth history. Aside from all of that there is geological evidence all over the place to suggest that some areas have frozen over and thawed out dozens of times, sometimes over the course of a decade, and sometimes over the course of tens of thousands of years.

Well THIS time it's happening at a rate FASTER than we arbitrarily think it should so humans MUST be the cause!

I wish evolution dealt with more charts and graphs. You guys have such easy debunking..

/Equivalent (and often the same) idiots to debunk though.

randomjsa: Damnhippyfreak: And what do you believe was the amount of change during the so-called "The Little Ice Age"? The most I've heard as much as 0.2 degrees C. What we're talking about in terms of ACC is a magnitude higher, and relatively sustained, not just for "a decade or two". Be also careful in that I claimed that of primary concern is the rate of temperature change - the amount of change as well as well as a potential for a long-term, baseline shift is of course of concern as well.

First of all referring to a well documented and completely accurate historic event as "so called" doesn't exactly make you look very well informed. This "so called" war we had with Japan and Germany back in the 40s as it were.

It was significant enough of a climate change to drop the population of several countries by no small margin and cause glaciers to advance far enough to crush villages. Since it is unlikely that a village was built a few feet from a glacier think about that for a moment.

There have been several periods of warming followed by longer periods of cooling going back, so far as we know, to the 1300s. Some of these changes were rather abrupt in terms of earth history. Aside from all of that there is geological evidence all over the place to suggest that some areas have frozen over and thawed out dozens of times, sometimes over the course of a decade, and sometimes over the course of tens of thousands of years.

Well THIS time it's happening at a rate FASTER than we arbitrarily think it should so humans MUST be the cause!


Sorry about the so-called bit. It's just that the "little ice age" pales in comparison to the real thing. It's always seemed like a bit of an overstatement to me. Here, look for yourself:


from: Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia" (2008) PNAS 105 (36), 13252-13257.


As for "Well THIS time it's happening at a rate FASTER than we arbitrarily think it should so humans MUST be the cause!", well all I can say is this:



Your statement is not even one of the lines of evidence that favors ACC. That you should claim it to be so says more about your ignorance of the topic than anything.

Corvus: You are just too stupid to ever find out what it actually means and listen to right wing talking points that misrepresent it.

Uh... what?

Re-read post. Image is reposted and criticised, not supported.

Damnhippyfreak: It's always seemed like a bit of an overstatement to me.

Whoops. Looks like my link got dropped.

ninjakirby: I wish evolution dealt with more charts and graphs. You guys have such easy debunking..

/Equivalent (and often the same) idiots to debunk though.

You've got to have a little fun with that monkey -> man image though.

Bocanegra: By the way, you haven't answered why the earth has been cooling while CO2 has been going up. Nice try though.

Every year from 2001 onwards has been hotter than every other year that we've measured, with the exception of 1998.

Just because 1998 was an outlier doesn't mean the earth has been cooling.

Bocanegra: It doesnt fit the hypothesis. If CO2 is going up, temperature will go up regardless of the amount of sampled time. Why would it not?

CO2 is not the only factor affecting temperature. Pacific decadal oscillation, solar irradiance, and other things have an effect. The last few years, both solar irradiance and the Pacific decadal oscillation index have been low.

WTFDYW: It never started

Of course GW is a myth. Matt Drudge just showed a picture of some place where it was really cold the other day. There were icicles everywhere and supposedly that hadn't in that place in a long time, which means the Earth is really getting colder. Duh.

I was with the Goracle at a bar.....we were both getting pretty tuned up and he leaned over and said..

"you know...this who global warming thing is all a big'ol hoax. Tht why I live in a house that consumes 20x more energy than the avg household and why I fly all over the world in a fairly inefficient private jet!"

Man is he funny when he is drunk!

GAT_00: Short term trends do not disprove long term trends.

They can. If someone found a process that decreased total universal entropy even for a few seconds, it woudl disprove the longer-term trend of entropy gain/heat-death.

l2science.

Anyhow, the coolness of recent years are probably just because people aren't buying breast implants in the current economy.

Jim_Callahan: GAT_00: Short term trends do not disprove long term trends.

They can. If someone found a process that decreased total universal entropy even for a few seconds, it woudl disprove the longer-term trend of entropy gain/heat-death.

l2science.

Please give an example of a short term trend disproving a long term trend that is actually physically possible.

Al Gore says the black spot on Jupiter is the result of man made global warming.

Hey, all I know is that this is the mildest July I've ever experienced in Kentucky.

I've never liked the term "Man made global warming". It seems to imply complete responsibility on man alone. Which nearly everyone would agree is simply not true.

Now... "Man accelerated climate change"... that's a term I can agree with. I know that the Earth goes though its own natural climate cycles, however... I think we've had our foot to the floor (metaphorically and literally) when it comes to our contribution to climate change. The facts look pretty damn clear to me that we've had a fairly significant impact on our climate. We're not the biggest player in the climate change game here on Earth, but I'm pretty sure we're the only contributing factor that is doing it on purpose.

FlashHarry: no. next question.

TheOther: yes. next question.

Thanks for settling that guys. Now I don't have to read the article or the thread.

Sum Dum Gai:

There's not one single system that drives temperature, but rather a bunch of different things all happening at once CO2 is happening on a long time scale, but there are plenty of other effects -- from El Niño to volcanic eruptions to changes in the solar cycle to simply variations in weather -- that will cause a lot of "noise" if you're looking year by year.

There haven't been any big volcanic eruptions recently, and I didn't want to try to work out an ENSO-temperature relationship, but I decided to do a little checking on the relative forcings of CO2 and solar. From 2000-2008 CO2 went up from 369 to 386 ppm. That corresponds to a radiative forcing of (3.7 W/m^2)*log2(386/369) = 0.24 W/m^2. At the same time, total solar irradiance dropped from 1366.4 to 1366.3 W/m^2, a decrease of 1.1 W/m^2. Neglecting albedo, the conversion from TSI to radiative forcing is 0.25 (area effect), and let's say that drops to 0.2 from albedo effects. Then you get a solar forcing drop of 0.2*1.1 = 0.22 W/m^2. I know I've seen peak-to-peak RF estimates of ~0.2 W/m^2 in the literature before, so that sounds about right.

So: from 2000-2008, the CO2 forcing went up by 0.24 W/m^2, and the solar forcing dropped by 0.22 W/m^2 (maybe 0.2): almost the same amount! In other words, in the last decade the decreased solar forcing has almost cancelled out the increased CO2 forcing. So it does seem that the impact of the solar cycle is pretty important over decadal timescales.

Of course, there are other forcings too; non-CO2 GHGs have probably been going up (although I've read there has been a pause in methane, the largest contributor); at the same time, aerosol cooling has also probably been rising (since it has been for the last 30-40 years or so). Eyeballing the trends in those two up to 2000 (I haven't seen more recent published data), I'd say it's probably a wash: not much forcing change this last decade. So on the basis of forcing alone, perhaps it's not surprising that there hasn't been a lot of warming, even without accounting for stochastic interannual variability causing higher or lower short-term trends.

(I am, however, neglecting the time-lag effect; temperatures from 2000-2008 aren't responding to just current forcings, but also earlier forcings. Then again, earlier forcings were even lower than now.)

I think one mistake many people make is to not work in terms of radiative forcing (watts per square meter). They see CO2 shooting up and wonder why it doesn't have a bigger effect. But because CO2 forcing is logarithmic in concentration, the increase isn't quite as dramatic as it looks from the concentration in ppm. At the same time, people look at solar irradiance and don't convert it to forcing; if they leave it in terms of TSI, then it mistakenly looks like a huge effect, which it's not; on the other hand, if they ignore it, then they're also understating the climatic impact of the 11-year cycle.

I see canyoneer is still trying to tout the Tsonis/Swanson paper as though it challenges anthropogenic warming. This is complete idiocy.

The actual paper is here. Swanson discusses it at RealClimate. Anyone with a functional grasp of the English language can see that it in no way conflicts with anthropogenic warming.

I continue to be amazed at the lengths morans will go to to deny science.

Has manbearpig ended?

LordZorch: "Global Warming" is nothing more than a political tool. Simple physics proves that CO2 cannot drive global temperatures.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Are you claiming that the greenhouse effect is widely believed to be fictional, and discussed as such in high school physics textbooks? Because you're wrong.

I mean, really, really, really wrong. That might be one of the most wrong statements that I've ever read. WTF are you talking about?