"Just as one or two years of record setting high temperatures doesn't imply climate change.."
I agree, individual short term data points do not define trends. We are compiling data points here in order to get at the truth, something that is sorely lacking in some quarters. It has only been hypothesized here that we may have started a cooling trend. Man-made global warming is still a hypothesis based on models. I also think we have shown here that the idea of significant man-made global warming is false. We have a preponderance of expert's models, and opinions thrown at as constantly, and not real numbers. So here I go again, and I will be very interested in any insights. This is a summary of my current understanding (or misunderstanding) and my amateur opinions based on these, and I try my best to use real data, in as full a data set possible to illustrate the thesis.
1) the author goes into the whole sunspot theory, which has been debunked fairly rigorously as a major cause of global warming.
He does not debunk anything. He only says it plays about ONE-QUARTER of the role in recent global warming and that there is uncertainty. Data is presented only for the period 1850 to present. This is a time period of normal 11 year average sunspot cycles. This does nothing to analyze the affects of longer periods of solar quiescence such as the Maunder Minimum, a period of very little sunspot activity that lasted from 1645 to 1715, and correlated with the timing of "the little ice age". There is a second, not as pronounced minimum, the Dalton, that also correlated with lower global temperatures.
So to say that the idea is debunked based on the article you presented is using math in the same way that you poo poo: Picking a data set that fits the thesis and leaving the time periods out that appear to strongly support the antithesis. This is typical of the type of data that I have found that is sold to the public.
We may soon have a third period with which to test this idea of global cooling associated with extended lack of sunspot activity as we are now several months beyond the projected start of the latest sunspot uptrend.
--
Points 2-5 ,below, are PLANKS of the GLOBAL WARMING models. If they don't hold up, the argument for significant man-made GLOBAL WARMING is a sham, imo:
2) Seas should be heating up, they are definitively NOT-
Message 24421433
3) Upper parts of the troposphere should be heating up over equatorial regions, this PLANK is based on the fact that at some point, putting more and more CO2 into the air causes very little heating. The models DEPEND on rising water vapor in the tropics to continue this heating. There has been no lower or middle tropospheric heating since 1980, the time period in which CO2 content of the atmophere has most rapidly accelerated-
remss.com
A horizontal line very clearly fits the period 1980-present
on the TLT (lower troposphere) and TMT (middle) graphs, and the beginning and ending temps for that period are essentially the same.
4) Antarctica should be very obviously warming. Again, because warming produces water vapor, and water vapor is a much more effective greenhouse gas : IT's NOT WARMIN:
Message 24573385
5) Big jumps in CO2 should result directly in warming. That is the thesis. The published data shows a large drop in GLOBAL temperature in the last two years, and the world is significantly cooler than the recent peak of 1998 , while AT THE SAME TIME CO2 levels have JUMPED. Not hopped or skipped, but Michael Jordan-skywalker jumped (the plants are very happy about this, our roses look the best they ever have) :
wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com
---
6) You imply by this post:
Message 24671047
that the world's ice is melting, and by omission of any further information, that we are responsible for this through are warming influences. I have found that this is a typical GW religionist approach. The big lie of omission, as usual, is not explaining to the public that we have been warming quite healthily for the last 15,000 years plus, and that the supposed warming anomaly correlating with the industrial revolution hardly shows up on the overall warming curve of the last several thousand years.
It is also interesting that the glaciers represented in those graphs represent less than 0.5% of the total percent of ground hosted world ice volume. They fail to mention Greenland, where it is not clear that there has been any significant loss and Antarctica, where there has been no change, and perhaps some gain:
johnstonsarchive.net
it also omits an interesting area, Mt. Shasta, California, where glaciers have increased, leading the researchers to a damning conclusion as to the use of glacier data as indicators of temperature change:
"As Howat et al. state, “the continued growth and stability of Mount Shasta’s glaciers suggests that temperature may not always be the dominant control on changes in the size of glaciers in temperate regions, as often assumed in assessing the potential response of glaciers to future climate change.” The researchers parenthetically refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) when raising the issue of this poor assumption. They further note the far-reaching implications of the poor assumption: “This would have implications for paleoclimate studies that use ice volume changes to infer regional climate conditions. Also, due to the currently poor simulation of precipitation in mountainous regions, it may suggest that climate model predictions of the impact of warming on snow and ice may be inaccurate.”
worldclimatereport.com
So, again, you are giving us a graph that represents snippets that are favorable to the thesis, and on top of that, making no attempt to put it into any sort of larger context. The data is only for 50 years. It does not give us any comparison at all to the bigger picture: ICE HAS BEEN MELTING FOR the last 17,000, years, and often at much faster rates than now, without any possible help from us evil CO2 belchers. |
