What Do We Think About Climate Change

So, Western peoples shud stop breeding?..or everybody? Western societies already are on a negative slide. Shall we put something in the other's water, starve out their crops, introduce disease, or just go to war with them?
Also, you may not have been paying attention but global warming isn't caused by humans - that is the consensus of reasonable observers.

 

Are you and idiot or what? Where did I said there is no global warming?

 

Boston, my friend, you just keep on posting as the perfect idiot you are. Why don't you do try to maintain a clever debate instead (I know it's difficult for you, but let me try again), and answer my questions in posts 8768, 8769 and 8770?

 

Just to make it easy for you, as you are totally incapable of doing anykind of effort to work data by yourselves, here you have the very last nine years of descending global temperatures, my beloved idiots.

Data from HadCRUT3, june 2001 to june 2010.

Now, do you allow me to say temperatures are not rising, stagnating, or, if you prefer, not behaving at all -from the Niño outburst of 1998 till present- like the previous 30 years period from about 1970 to 2000?

Could you please stop your stupid fighting back with nonsense and smallmaindnesses, please?

 

It has been another perfect night to watch the Perseids over here, anchored at Aldán bay (we call them with the more romantic name of "Lágrimas de San Lorenzo")....

Now some more food for the thinking in this sunny morning, before going sailing again.


We have seen how Ole Humlum suggested the LIA ended at the Poles around 1920.

If we take the graph of temperatures 1850 till present from HadCRUT3 data, we see temperatures were dropping till around 1910 and then rising steeply for around 30 years up to 1940, descending slightly for another 30 years up to around 1970 and then rising steeply again ( at a very similar pace than the period 1910-1940) from around 1970 to 2000, and since then perhaps initiating a new slight cooling for another 30 years period.

As I find a clear contradiction between "consensus science" which says anthropogenic CO2 is needed to explain the 1970-2000 warming, and the fact that the warming in that period is not different to the 1910-1940 one, which such "consensus science" attributes to natural causes.....

....what if we asume LIA ended in fact around 2010 and all warming since then has just been due to the bouncing back from the cold?

I have run a 37 months mean of HadCRUT3 temperatures for the last century from 1911 to 2010, detrended of 0.72ºC which was the mean temperature increase for that period.

Find attached the graph I got. Can we see a +/-60 years cycle there?

Cheers.

 

today is cooler than yesterday, so I guess global warming is a myth

And would someone explain to me about winter, winter cold really destroys the warming myth.

 

Troy, CO2 was much higher than today at a time humans were around too. However that is besides the point. The claim...well your claim is that CO2 will screw up the temperature and we will all burn in hell. The proof that such is a fallacy is in historical records. If 20 times higher than today did not produce the heat it was supposed to and did not stop an ice age, where is the proof that a concentration 20 times lower, going up to ... what? 19 times lower?18? 10? will have any effect temporary or permanent on anything at all? The whole thing is bananas!

No one really knows for shure which combination of elements drives temperatures, Sun activity seems to be very possible and surely there are many other contributing factors including CO2, however the contribution of Co2 overall is small, the fraction of CO2 produced by human has also an effect but it is negligible in the overall picture when you consider that 20 times the current concentration, and that is TOTAL not human produced, did not doom the planet. We are talking butterfly fart here. Not worth even talking about.
The reality is that if human produced CO2 would stop overnight. there would be no one able to measure the effect of such drastic change. And the greens want us to go back to live in caves in order to reduce our CO2 contribution by 20%.

Like I said there is real pollution that is running away whilst we talk ********.

 

Humans have been around for a million years or so, civilization has been around for only six thousand years or so which coincides with our current mild climate.


I wonder if there could be a connection?

 

I'm not sure what your problem, is or why you're trying to deny your own words. How many posts have you made lately, insisting that there is no long-term trend towards global warming, that temperatures have stagnated or started down, so on and so forth?

I think you've been spouting off so much for so long that even you don't know what you're trying to say anymore; you're talking just to hear your head rattle.

 

you are struggling again G, your cherry picking of data isn't fooling anyone

that ten year graph clearly shows an increasing trend there Spiffy

even the five year graph shows a very slight increase in surface air temps as if it maters any cause we all know its the longer term trend pictured last that is the final nail your coffin.

not sure where you dreamed up that graph from but my sources are all clearly listed
kinda looks like you fudged data again or invented something cause your graph looks nothing like the Hadcrut3 graphs I found

oh
I typically dont like the web site I got this all from but it did have the graphs I was looking for. If G were to actually read anything he might end up at http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Recent%20land%20surface%20temperaturewere it does touch briefly on recent stagnation as well as present information compiled by my favorite two climate deniers Christy and Spencer.
Now that is not to say that there is anything but the typical oscillation in the temp increase and G and a few others would like to jump up and down and have us think a few years of data has some form of statistical precedence over hundred years of clear trending, It doesn't and I don't think he's really fooled anyone with this crap but just in case its always fun to find the flaws in his BS and present them to the group

cheers
B

 

CO2 has never been twenty times higher when humans were around; where are you getting that figure? And I never said AGW is going to drive temperatures so high we'll 'burn in hell.' As a matter of fact, I've made no predictions at all about the results of AGW; I've simply said I believe the scientists who tell us it's happening. Stop adding melodramatic flourishes to what I say and believe.

No. What's 'bananas' is to think we can make major changes in our environment without major results.

you're saying that as though it's a proven fact, although almost every scientist in the world says otherwise.

Again, you're posting wild, unsupported claims as though they're proven facts. You're also getting melodramatic on me again; I don't know of anyone who wants us to dump civilization completely, and go live in caves. If there is such a nut, he certainly can't be considered a typical 'green.'

On this at least, we agree: it's time to stop talking ********.

 

whats kinda funny is here's the graph Guillermo tried to foist off on us

that and you can hardly make out were its from or who compiled it

and yet here's the graph I found when I typed in a search of the exact same data

HadCRUT3%2010yearTrendAnalysis.gif

anyone else notice a glaring difference cause it looks to me as if old G is up to his typical tricks again

the actual hadcrut3 graph shows a clear rising trend in all resolutions presented down to a five year linear fit

 

This all reminds me of a joke

 

A friend of mine uses that as his signature....

 

He knows you are on the internet.