Global warming strikes again...

[civman110]

Do you realize that the Earth's average temperature has correlated pretty much exactly with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere for like the last 200 million years?

It really hasn't.

Over the last 200 million years CO2 levels and temperatures have risen on average, however there has been lots of periods where we have seen substantial cooling with increases in C02 and also periods where we've had temperatures similar to what we are seeing now, with drastically less C02 in the atmosphere. However, this cooling and warming has been largely correlated with solar activity, for example:

 

[CavLancer]

warpus, if you cobble together enough weather you've basically got climate though I agree, it takes more than one storm.

civman, yes that's right. Other factors are closer to home. The PDO, ADO, as well as the El Nino and La Nina system also impact climate, as does such stuff as the position of the Earth relative to the sun as the orbit changes, same with the tilt. Also something else has been at work, setting up the periods of glaciation and interglacials of the current ice age into something like order. Dunno what that is exactly but, very roughly, the glaciers advance for the last 4 or 5 times and half a million years every 90,000 years and recede every 11,000ish. The current period of interglacial known as the Holocene saw humans establish civilization. Everything we've done and built other than mud huts, hunting and fornication has happened in the Holocene. Humankind knows nothing else. The Holocene is 11,500 years old. Therefore, if whatever sets this trend is in effect it should be ending. Glaciers should start to advance again, the Earth should once again become cold, any old day now.

Most coolistas, to coin a cool term, consider that the coming cold will be merely a cold period from 30 to 250 years long, and then the Holocene returns. I hope that I'm wrong and there is AGW to a greater extent than I can see. I hope there is significant global warming outside and above the mild effects I consider to be more realistic. If we are going into another minimum, with so many billions on the planet, well that's bad. If the Holocene is ending, well, then we are ****ed.

 

[CavLancer]

Ya, that's right civman. The hockey stick has been proven to be complete BS.

 

[warpus]

I think I am going to trust actual climate scientists over some guy on a forum analyzing graphs just by looking at them

 

[CavLancer]

Sure warpus, of course you are. What I would suggest is to also keep your head out of the sand and if things appear to be turning much colder it might be wise to trust that too.

 

[Archbob]

Civman, if you look at your first graph, you can easily see that the temperature correlates far more closely with CO2 concentrations than Sunspot activities.
Over the last 200 million, it actually has correlated very closely. Here's a graph of the last several hundred thousand:

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html

It makes sense as well as CO2 directly traps sunlight.

 

[civman110]

Civman, if you look at your first graph, you can easily see that the temperature correlates far more closely with CO2 concentrations than Sunspot activities.

No it doesn't.

Explain the period during 1940-1950 where the C02 levels were drastically less than in 1980 -1990 with the temperate being roughly the same. This isn't correlated with C02 in the slightest, but is correlated with the increase in solar activity almost exactly.

 

[Akka]

I'd like to have one buck for each fool who doesn't grasp either statistic or the actual effects of global warming.
I'd be a rich man indeed.

In the meantime I'm going to bash my head against a wall at the usual display of human stupidity.

 

[CavLancer]

So you disagree with us Akka? Okay then, your opinion has been noted and is of course respected. Have another point to make?

 

[Archbob]

No it doesn't.

Explain the period during 1940-1950 where the C02 levels were drastically less than in 1980 -1990 with the temperate being roughly the same. This isn't correlated with C02 in the slightest, but is correlated with the increase in solar activity almost exactly.

Do you really not know how graphs and statistics work?

It's never going to match up 1 for 1. But the overall correlation between temperature and C02 on that graph is a lot greater than the overall correlation between temperature and solar activity. Yes, there are cycles, but its clear that the mean for each cycle is higher than the mean from the previous cycles for that graph, there is a distinct upwards trend line for both CO2 levels and average temperature. It only takes about a 4 degree rise in temperature to completely melt something like Greenland.

Solar activity seems to have peaked in 1930 or so and yet every year for the last 2 decades has been warmer than that year.

Also, if you look at the graphs here:

http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_teacherpage/ , its pretty clear that there's been a massive upwards swing in the last 40-50 years.

 

[civman110]

Do you really not know how graphs and statistics work?

I'm well aware of how statistics work. Do you have any evidence other than ad hominem attacks?

It's never going to match up 1 for 1. But the overall correlation between temperature and C02 on that graph is a lot greater than the overall correlation between temperature and solar activity.

What you're trying to claim here is very clearly false when you look at any of those graphs.

its pretty clear that there's been a massive upwards swing in the last 40-50 years.

No one is denying there has been an increase in C02, we are just saying that it is not correlated with temperature changes.

Temperature changes are directly correlated with solar activity, which has increased within the last 40-50 years, as I have just shown you.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Is there some reason it has to be either/or? I mean if I go for a stroll on a blazing summers day, wrapped up in polar explorer gear, and then pass out from heat exhaustion, would you feel the need to say "his clothing was fine, the sun is at fault for being too hot"?

 

[civman110]

Is there some reason it has to be either/or? I mean if I go for a stroll on a blazing summers day, wrapped up in polar explorer gear, and then pass out from heat exhaustion, would you feel the need to say "his clothing was fine, the sun is at fault for being too hot"?

I believe there are many factors that contribute to changes in global temperatures, as CavLancer has mentioned, however the primary driver appears to be solar activity. Who would of thought? The sun warms the Earth?

The only correlation we see between C02 and global temperatures is within the last 40-50 years, which also correlates with an increase in solar activity during that same period. This in no way proves that C02 significantly impacts global temperatures.

 

[Archbob]

Is there some reason it has to be either/or? I mean if I go for a stroll on a blazing summers day, wrapped up in polar explorer gear, and then pass out from heat exhaustion, would you feel the need to say "his clothing was fine, the sun is at fault for being too hot"?

Because solar cycles are cyclical, temperature increases via the last 40 or 50 years and greenhouse gases hasn't. Over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, the temperature usually correlates with Co2 levels. And there's the fact the Co2 directly traps the sun's heat. There's also the example of our closest planetary neighbor.



Also the change in temperature does correlate closer with Co2 levels than solar activitiy.

The current solar activity cycle is similar to the cycle between 1920-1940 but the average global temperature is much higher. Our mountain glaciers have retreated farther than they have in thousands of years.

 

[CavLancer]

The lack of solar magnetism as evidenced by the missing sunspots is the 800 lb gorilla in the room, certainly.

 

[Akka]

So you disagree with us Akka? Okay then, your opinion has been noted and is of course respected. Have another point to make?

The entire Internet is choke-full on evidence and proof and documents, by all the most reputable science agencies and scientists.
If you're still in denial now, nothing will ever change your mind. It's Creationism or "moonlanding is fake" all over again.
We have a saying here, which is "no one is blinder than the one who doesn't want to see". It's exactly such a case here, there is nothing to discuss because there is nothing you would actually accept.

 

[CavLancer]

Right Akka, I got that from your first post. Your scientists are right and we're wrong. Thanks for the further clarification. Anything else?

 

[Akka]

It's not exactly like you're actually interested in anything that could drag you out of your ignorance, consdering the huge efforts you make to stay in it despite all evidences offered by reality, so why bother to ask ?

 

[CavLancer]

Trying to be polite.

 

[civman110]

People who believe in global warming are the same kind of people who believed the world was flat.