If you don't believe in global warming, you're standing in the

[Bigfatbillsfan]

How about you quit playing the victim and/or mucking about with the distractions, and address the question, about the substance of this thread, that has been put to you 4 times?

 

How do you explain the data showing not-warming? We'll get to why, and what could be the reason, or, we will get to who's been lying, and why, and how this could have happened, but not before we acknowledge that the DATA doesn't support the(your?) assertion.

 

 

Here are some charts depicting global temperature readings up to about 2008. Take a look and tell me how you make the claim that the data is showing that the Earth is not warming. The data clearly shows a warming trend.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Edited May 8, 2013 by Bigfatbillsfan

[OCinBuffalo]

Here are some charts depicting global temperature readings up to about 2008. Take a look and tell me how you make the claim that the data is showing that the Earth is not warming. The data clearly shows a warming trend.

 

http://data.giss.nas...temp/graphs_v3/

Yes, this is why we have, or at least try to have, real discussions about this here.

 

IF it wasn't for those charts, then you'd be treated like conner and his "Lincoln(the creator of Corporate America) would be a Democrat today" threads.

 

However, those charts don't account for why, and let me direct your attention to this link, from yours, which is under the third heading (Annual Land and Ocean Mean Temperature Change) and referred to as "page 2" http://www.columbia....ure/T_moreFigs/

 

the mean temps are flat, while the increase in CO2 over that period of time has been exponential. Look at the 4th chart from the top. Any reasonable person can see that it is flat. Is it supposed to be? No. Not if we believe Al Gore.

 

IF the correlation, never mind causation, was there, then we should expect to see an exponential increase relative to the exponential increase of CO2 (that is coming from India and China, and not us, btw.)

 

We do not.

 

So, any scientist, or anybody who is familiar with deductive reasoning, would be correct in saying "CO2 therefore cannot be the only causal factor here. There must be either a more complex set of factors, or, something that is being missed, or, CO2 has at best a small relationship to mean gloabal temp."

 

All of these, reasonable, conclusions indicate that exactly nothing is "settled" about this. Therefore, to make a political case for inflicting socialism on the entire world, based solely on something that clearly is NOT settled, is the height of buffoonery.

 

Edit: I have a correlation for you. In the 2nd chart of your/my link you can see that land temps rise a little, and ocean temps stay the same. How about this: more pavement and development on land...and 0 on the ocean? The major straightline increase started right around the same time as Communism died. Imagine...Communism dies, Globalization starts, and what do you know, more development means higher temps on land. I am shocked.

Edited May 8, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Yes, this is why we have, or at least try to have, real discussions about this here.

 

IF it wasn't for those charts, then you'd be treated like conner and his "Lincoln(the creator of Corporate America) would be a Democrat today" threads.

 

However, those charts don't account for why, and let me direct your attention to this link, from yours, which is under the third heading (Annual Land and Ocean Mean Temperature Change) and referred to as "page 2" http://www.columbia....ure/T_moreFigs/

 

the mean temps are flat, while the increase in CO2 over that period of time has been exponential. Look at the 4th chart from the top. Any reasonable person can see that it is flat. Is it supposed to be? No. Not if we believe Al Gore.

 

IF the correlation, never mind causation, was there, then we should expect to see an exponential increase relative to the exponential increase of CO2 (that is coming from India and China, and not us, btw.)

 

We do not.

 

So, any scientist, or anybody who is familiar with deductive reasoning, would be correct in saying "CO2 therefore cannot be the only causal factor here. There must be either a more complex set of factors, or, something that is being missed, or, CO2 has at best a small relationship to mean gloabal temp."

 

All of these, reasonable, conclusions indicate that exactly nothing is "settled" about this. Therefore, to make a political case for inflicting socialism on the entire world, based solely on something that clearly is NOT settled, is the height of buffoonery.

 

Edit: I have a correlation for you. In the 2nd chart of your/my link you can see that land temps rise a little, and ocean temps stay the same. How about this: more pavement and development on land...and 0 on the ocean? The major straightline increase started right around the same time as Communism died. Imagine...Communism dies, Globalization starts, and what do you know, more development means higher temps on land. I am shocked.

 

I agree that a reasonable person can conclude that the issue isn't settled. In fact there have been some pretty good models making pretty good cases for Climate Chang that is not, or not completely due to human activity. But remember what stated: the issue is not settled. And therefore we cannot rule out human activity. Claiming that we should not act on what we know at this point is like saying that a person should not cut salt out of their diet after being diagnosed with high blood pressure because they aren't sure if salt is the reason their BP is elevated. And yes, I agree that Al Gore is an alarmist.

 

Now we also cannot just look at one chart and ignore the rest when arguing the point. Not to mention if we are looking at the same chart: (is it the one with the the 1, 12, 60, and 132 month means? correct me if I'm looking at the wrong chart.) The only line I see on the chart that is relatively flat is the 12 month mean. Even that would looks like it would show a small uptick in temperature anomaly if it were plotted and the high +/- trend is indicative of quite a bit of noise in the data.

 

What you want to pay most attention to when looking for the best long term indicator are the 60 and 132 month anomaly indicators. Both those show a marked increase in anomaly and the 132 month indicator is almost completely devoid of background noise.

 

The idea of more development on land causing higher surface temps is one of the better models that tries to take CO2 out of the equation. However, replacing CO2 with land development does not take human activity out of the equation. And if human activity is enough to tips the scales to the point of runaway greenhouse effect we end up in the same place we were before.

 

The major difference between land an ocean temps is more due to the complex system of convection and currents that take place in the oceans that do not take place on land.

 

The best argument against CO2 = Climate Change is the exponential amount of CO2 in the atmosphere without the exponential increase in temperature anomaly. Either our earlier models CO2/anomaly models are in need of updating, or there is lag between CO2 release and temperature uptick.