The following chart doesn't have the latest data, you need to add a dip to the 1979 low:
1900 = few cars (+1.1 degrees)
1979 = 150M cars (-1.0 degrees)
2008 = 300M cars (-1.1 degrees)
Conclusion? Cars could be the cause of the global cooling, we might not have much time.
If you looked at this chart from a stock trending point of veiw, from the information shown an upward trend that hasn't had a confirmed reversal nor are the deviations significantly different from the spike some 7 years ago....
ReplyDeleteI added a little more context with the second chart.
ReplyDeleteI agree there is no real trend since 1900, even though we are quite a bit cooler today than we were then.
And if we are cooling, what mechanisms account for the collapse of ice shelfs and glaciers?
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily a fan of the data about global warming, but would like to start a debate about how cooling and ice shelf deterioration could take place.
As hot as it was in Oregon the last couple of days it's hard to believe we're cooling. As a matter of fact, it never fails that it snows one last time in April every year. But not this year. 80+ degrees.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned elsewhere, the heat retention effects of increased CO2 are a matter of physics. It's not really something that's up for debate, because to be successful on that front means that you'd have to (a) show direct evidence to the contrary in controlled experiments and (b) propose an alternative hypothesis that explains both previous results and your results. Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteWhich means the real question is: are there some other mechanisms that counter the heat retention effects of increased CO2 concentration? This is a much more complicated question and has complicated answers. The climate is a horrendously complicated feedback system.
And it isn't necessarily true that we can rely entirely on the historical record for this, either. Aside from periods of extensive volcanic activity, there may not be any other historical periods in which CO2 was injected into the atmosphere in large amounts independently of the climate (that is, in response to something other than changes to the climate).
The bottom line is that if we reduce/eliminate our CO2 emissions, at the very least we will be returning the overall environment back to something that, barring some other unusual input that didn't exist previously, should resemble the environments of the past for which we have extensive records of one kind or another, and therefore we'd be returning it to a state that would render it at least somewhat predictable by reference to historical records. If we continue on the path we're on, there's a decent chance we're heading into uncharted territory, which is not necessarily where you want to be when dealing with something so massive and essential.
This doesn't mean that we should necessarily expend all our resources to reduce our CO2 emissions to the noise floor, but it does mean that we're probably better off reducing our CO2 emissions than not.
Which is another way of saying: when you don't know the answer for the specific situation, the best thing to do is to drop back to fundamentals and take guidance from them.
bravo KCB
ReplyDeleteOne more thought: I don't necessarily believe we'll see some sort of runaway positive feedback loop to the degree that it would destroy most of the life on earth or any of that nonsense. But I do think there's a reasonable chance that we'll make things rather uncomfortable for ourselves if we simply ignore the problem. Dealing with this issue is really a matter of self interest more than anything else.
ReplyDelete"And if we are cooling, what mechanisms account for the collapse of ice shelfs and glaciers?"
ReplyDeleteMost likely previous warming. The temp dive to below the year 1900 only developed in the last two years. Mars was or is clearly warming as ice caps have substantially shrunken. Jupiter warmed 15 degrees and now has three GRSs.
But all cycles come to an end, or at least a healthy retrace.
We are colder than the year 1900, that is simply factual. But I understand that many who used the same temp data to draw politicized conclusions for profit will now what them ditched or altered.
Found:
ReplyDeleteA new intervention/stimulus package needed for the SUN!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm
Let's see the climate czar go after that one!! Just think of all the stimulus the government could 'create'.
Ben
KCB, this has to be one of the most retarded statements I've read on AGW. You wrote:
ReplyDelete'The bottom line is that if we reduce/eliminate our CO2 emissions, at the very least we will be returning the overall environment back to something that, barring some other unusual input that didn't exist previously, should resemble the environments of the past...'
So are you saying there was some golden age where climate was a static phenomenon?
I see so little science with the CO2 hysteria. It is all brownshirt/fascist tactics with old leftist ideas which stifle debate. Doesn't it bother you that with all the limitations of the science, the models, and the data, this is the only branch of science where no debate is allowed? Guess not...
KCB is simply pointing out the obvious for those not blinded by some left right ideology. Humans have inflicted, infected and overwhelmed most of the natural ecosystems on this plant. We have made the air less healthy, we have poisoned the rivers, lakes and oceans and contaminated many areas of the land as to make it not only unusable but uninhabitable. If we, as stewards of this planet would check those things which produce CO2 we would reverse many of the things that we know we are doing to this planet. The only reason not to look at and face mans neglect and indeed willful degregation of this planet is the very same as our situation with government and money...... greed, corruption and laziness. We many not have a definitive handle on the who's, what's, where's or whys of global warming but you can certianly attribute a good many problems with air, water, and soil pollution to mans ability to use fossel fuels in so many creative ways...
ReplyDeleteFDR .. you did an article called Prosperity vs. Control and I think that those that view this whole subject as a none issue are from the mentioned Groups 1 and 3.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "So are you saying there was some golden age where climate was a static phenomenon?"
ReplyDeleteNo. The climate has always been dynamic. But the climate has also rarely been subjected to a CO2 injection of the magnitude generated by humans today. The closest thing I know of that would do that is volcanic activity, but current volcanic activity produces (in a year) only about 1% of that produced by humans (again, in a year) today.
And that means if you wish to look to the historical climate record to determine how the climate is likely to react to current human activity, you'll probably have to look rather hard.
"I see so little science with the CO2 hysteria. It is all brownshirt/fascist tactics with old leftist ideas which stifle debate. Doesn't it bother you that with all the limitations of the science, the models, and the data, this is the only branch of science where no debate is allowed? Guess not..."
Oh, yes, that bothers me a great deal. Debate is at the core of what science is all about. But the debate there is (and should be) about those things for which the evidence is inconclusive and/or incomplete. Which means that anyone who wishes to participate in the scientific debate must understand this: THE DIRECT EFFECTS OF INCREASED CO2 CONCENTRATIONS ON HEAT RETENTION ARE NOT UP FOR DEBATE. That is not because scientists are assuming the conclusion or anything like that, but because the heat retention effects of CO2 concentration are directly measurable. You would literally be discarding direct and repeatable evidence by attempting to debate that point.
And that means that if you wish to posit that the increased CO2 concentration will not place warming pressure on the climate, YOU MUST SHOW A COUNTERBALANCING MECHANISM. The warming debate right now is precisely about those mechanisms. The climate is a horribly complex thing, so there's plenty of room for debate on either side.
One thing is a near certainty: there is some rate of emissions beyond which the counterbalancing mechanisms in the climate will find themselves overwhelmed. It's possible that the rate in question is absurdly high, relative to our current emissions rates. But it's possible that it's not, too.
Make no mistake: we are playing dice with the climate. We've gotten away with it so far. But that doesn't mean we always will, particularly since the amount of time we've been at it is *tiny* on a geological scale.
I really don't think we're going to destroy the earth or any stupid thing like that, despite what we're doing right now. But we may make things mighty uncomfortable for ourselves. The earth won't care what we do, and that might even be true of most of the life on the planet. But we certainly will care a great deal, because we DEPEND on climactic stability for many critical activities, such as agriculture and habitation.
So by playing with the climate this way, we're really only "endangering" ourselves. I think that alone is (or should be) sufficient reason to think hard about what we're doing and scale it back as much as we reasonably can. I think we'd be foolish to spend ourselves into bankruptcy attempting to combat it, since dealing with the "damage", while it might hurt, probably wouldn't bankrupt us.
But we ignore the problem at our peril.
I like this point. The bad thing is: we will pay higher taxes regardless. First it was global warming, then it will be global cooling - the taxes will go up anyway. That's frustrating.
ReplyDelete