On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:02:37 -0000, "Stan"
wrote:
2 things to comment on Peter:
1) Timelines on graph not even. Making recent warming look a shallow upward
line, with no ups and downs in recent history which we all know there has
been.
http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/vtrendz.png
Stan, that graph has a 12,000 year full scale, on
which there is not enough resolution to show individual
year or even 5 year running averages.
I assume you meant 'steep' upward line, the
data may only go up to year 2000 AD.
But if the calendar years were used instead
of 'years before present' the MWP and LIA and other
major temperature events are clearly shown, even
though the changes are only a couple of degrees.
The big feature, though not a large variation
in temperature, is the lack of cool years from 6,000
years to about 4,500 years before present, the plot
does not go below the zero line.
That seems to be about when civilization made
big changes, Egypt, Persia, Greece and Rome saw
big changes and China also seems to have enjoyed
an easier life which allowed time and comfort to
begin study and writing.
Not having cool years must have been nice,
but even in the last century some areas had brutal
cold years, the entire midwest saw horrible cold
years in the 1960s, the winter of 1962-1963 on
the shores of Lake Erie were the worse I ever saw,
a real ice age, no thawing at all from the first week
in December to the first week in May.
The fact that the steep upward line stopped
going upward in 1999 and has been almost level
since is an indication of a disturbance in the data
record, rather than an actual leveling off in climate
change.
But weather can change at any time, oddly
enough, it was 58 F here at 6 AM yesterday, and
26 F by supper time, the reverse of a normal day.
Events like this show how averaging can be
very deceiving, the annual global average is
rather silly, it attempts to be a proxy for energy
content, but is not.
2) It is also not painting whole picture, natural warming/cooling in past
has been due to either natural increase/decrease in solar output, changes in
natural green house gases etc
I think you are making a gross assumption
about 'natural greenhouse gases', there is not
a clear indication that atmospheric gases cause
a definite relation to temperature, it never gets
really hot when water vapor is high.
this warming has been measured to increase
with increases in industrial CO2 which has a easily identified isotope.
But atmospheric CO2 concentrations have
been going up every year, yet there has been
no increase in temperature above average 1998
levels. That is eleven years of CO2 increases
with no increase in temperature.
We
are also in a cooling phase of solar output which is opposing the man made
warming
You are assuming man made warming again,
it is not a certainty, just a possibility in some minds,
I believe greenhouse gases could cause cooling
because they are the only thing that cools the
atmosphere.
which came after a warming phase during 80's and 90's.
The data seems to show warming, but those
are the years when so many changes took place,
the change from manual recording of temperature
and the change to digital sensors alone could
have caused a disruption in data continuity.
The big changes in the list of weather stations
used, even with only using anomalies, leaves a
question about the continuity of data.
However we
are not seeing significant falls in temperature as we saw warming in warming
in warming phase of sun which means there must be something else. Just a
coincidence that industrial CO2 (CO2 is a lab proven greenhouse gas) has
been increasing ?
Or it means that using the recent weather
station list will never show a cooling, possibly
because most of them suffer from UHI, which
was pretty much non-existent before 1950.
I let you make your own mind up.
Unfortunately governments may increase
taxes on the opinion of a few.
From reading comments here no matter what evidence says people seem to have
fallen into their own camp on the issue and will not have their minds
changed either way.
That can easily be resolved by just waiting
to see if any upward slant of the line after 1998
appears. While not having a warmer year than
1998 is not conclusive, it suggests that there is
a problem with something(s) about the data
collection and manipulation.
To make things worse is the abuse which people throw at
each other.
It is the obscenities that I object to, and
the way the AGW nutcases constantly try to
discredit anybody who writes anything that
does not agree with AGW.
I firmly believe AGW is happening but I do have friends who I
generally believe to be intelligent
Aawww, they couldn't possibly be intelligent
if they don't believe in CO2 warming, could they?
:-)
but although I do get frustrated with
their lack of wanting to believe
Wanting to believe? Why would anybody
want to, or not want to, this isn't a question of
believing, the thermometers don't have that
ability.
what I see as overwhelming evidence, I
would never insult them or give the abuse I see posted by some on the
newsgroup, from both sides of the argument.
Stan
I appreciate that, and I am sure Peter does,
but even you have not mentioned anything
about atmospheric physics, AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption
that CO2 increases causes temperature increases.