That graph shows, roughly, a rate of warming since around 1980 that is about the same as the rate of warming 1910 - 1940. Given that the rate of CO2 emissions now is much greater than during the period 1910 - 1940, it is apparent that there are factors other than CO2 which are influencing this warming.And the spike 1998 was a bad El Niño year.
You cannot argue - as Andrew Bolt and co try to do - that it's been cooling since 1998.
Wait till the next El Niño.
That graph shows, roughly, a rate of warming since around 1980 that is about the same as the rate of warming 1910 - 1940. Given that the rate of CO2 emissions now is much greater than during the period 1910 - 1940, it is apparent that there are factors other than CO2 which are influencing this warming.
... a quote by Ayn Rand (US novelist - ironically she wrote "Atlas Shrugged" )
Ayn Rand ........Here's what she said about pollution:- back in the 60's granted - but we are reaping the rewards today ...
"If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States:
1900 - 47.3 years
1920 - 53 years
1940 - 60 years
1968 - 70.2 years (the latest figures compiled [as of January 1971])
Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent "Thank you" to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find.-- Ayn Rand, "The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution
I'm simply looking at the "Getting Warmer" chart YOU posted. The "Global Temperature Change" chart shows essentially the same thing.Sorry, Don't think I can necessarily agree with your logic there Smurf.
Two obvious points from these charts:
1. There is a warming trend.
2. Warming over the period 1910 - 1940 and 1978 - 2008 occurred at about the same rate of 0.5 to 0.6 over a 30 year period or 0.02 degrees per annum.
Not shown on the chart is that CO2 emissions during the period 1978 - 2008 were far higher than during the period 1910 - 1940 and yet the extent of warming was almost identical. That very strongly suggests that there are factors other than CO2 at work here.
CO2 may well have an influence, but we certainly aren't seeing anything resembling a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature during the 20th Century. The effect would seem to have diminished over time - more and more CO2 is pumped out but the rate of warming is the same as it was 70 years earlier with far lower CO2 emissions. That is what the charts show. Why I don't claim to know.
Are the changes in CO2 concentration causing changes in temperature or is it the other way around? It’s both
^^^^^^^ An Inconvenient Truth ^^^^^^^I'm simply looking at the "Getting Warmer" chart YOU posted. The "Global Temperature Change" chart shows essentially the same thing.
It shows warming of about 0.5 degrees between 1910 and 1940 followed by a sudden cooling of about 0.2. Then there's a jump in the late 1970's of about 0.2, back to about 1940 levels, followed by a warming of 0.5 over the following 30 years.
Two obvious points from these charts:
1. There is a warming trend.
2. Warming over the period 1910 - 1940 and 1978 - 2008 occurred at about the same rate of 0.5 to 0.6 over a 30 year period or 0.02 degrees per annum.
Not shown on the chart is that CO2 emissions during the period 1978 - 2008 were far higher than during the period 1910 - 1940 and yet the extent of warming was almost identical. That very strongly suggests that there are factors other than CO2 at work here.
What caused the 1910 - 1940 warming? If it was CO2 then why have we not seen far greater warming since given the huge increase in CO2 emissions?
If it was not due to CO2 then what, if any, evidence do we have that the cause of the 1910 - 1940 warming has not again caused warming since the late 1970's?
I note an approximately 30 year cycle seems to exist at least during the 20th Century. It could be argued that the 1940's - 1970's period should have cooled more than it did but CO2 emissions worked to keep temperatures higher. But if that is the case, then you would logically expect the rate of warming since the late 1970's to have exceeded that during the 1910 - 1940 period which it clearly hasn't.
CO2 may well have an influence, but we certainly aren't seeing anything resembling a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature during the 20th Century. The effect would seem to have diminished over time - more and more CO2 is pumped out but the rate of warming is the same as it was 70 years earlier with far lower CO2 emissions. That is what the charts show. Why I don't claim to know.
1. CO2 in the atmosphere in 1900 ~ 280ppm
CO2 in the atmosphere today ~380 ppm
IPCC pedict a forcing of 3 degrees per doubling of CO2. It was 3.5 degrees in the last IPCC report. What changed?
Doing the math results in a warming of roughly 1.3C since 1900, which we have not seen. Why?
2. Trying to predict the Earth's climate is the most complex scientific project ever undertaken .....
What is the worst thing that can happen regarding Climate Change?
We have gone back and forth on the ins and outs of climate change. We have probably agreed that we can't be certain about what will happen. The clearest fact is that by continuing to debate the issue we end up doing nothing about it and facing whatever consequence occurs.]
a. I'm simply looking at the "Getting Warmer" chart ... "Global Temperature Change" essentially the same..
b. It shows warming of about 0.5 degrees between 1910 and 1940 followed by a sudden cooling of about 0.2. Then there's a jump in the late 1970's of about 0.2, back to about 1940 levels, followed by a warming of 0.5 over the following 30 years.
Two obvious points from these charts:
1. There is a warming trend.
2. Warming over the period 1910 - 1940 and 1978 - 2008 occurred at about the same rate of 0.5 to 0.6 over a 30 year period or 0.02 degrees per annum.
c. Not shown on the chart is that CO2 emissions during the period 1978 - 2008 were far higher than during the period 1910 - 1940 and yet the extent of warming was almost identical. That very strongly suggests that there are factors other than CO2 at work here.
...
d. I note an approximately 30 year cycle seems to exist at least during the 20th Century. It could be argued that the 1940's - 1970's period should have cooled more than it did but CO2 emissions worked to keep temperatures higher.
e. But if that is the case, then you would logically expect the rate of warming since the late 1970's to have exceeded that during the 1910 - 1940 period which it clearly hasn't.
f. CO2 may well have an influence, but we certainly aren't seeing anything resembling a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature during the 20th Century. ect
.I don't agree. My point has always been to shift the debate sideways to real, demonstrable, measurable and current environmental issues, issues that because of the focus on co2 get totally ignored. Concentrate on these and co2 will naturally be contained, whether it is a real issue or not
.
Wayne what part of the logic of the video did you find a hole in? As I see it your logical approach is
This is the Titanic
The Titanic is unsinkable
Therefore we can't be sinking
Your absolutely right Wayne. It is a waste of time talking with people who don't read posts properly.
It's even more useless trying to address zombie arguments that no matter how thoroughly discredited are still trotted out for another airing.
For anyone who may have forgotten, in the run-up to the election a little over a year ago, our esteemed KRudd was on the verge of "supporting a [size=+1]60% cut by 2020[/size] to lower greenhouse emissions - depending on the Garnaut report".
I predict that the next KRudd approval ratings might look a fair bit sicker in % terms.
I wonder what Malcolm will make out of this... all he has to offer is 1% more on KRudd's MIN & MAX numbers and he will have the Greens in his pocket!He will have a grin like a Cheshire Cat right now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?