Yeah, that 1998 temperature looks very flat: <img src="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gif"> </img> Except for that giant spike in 1998. Here's a thought, why not be honest, pick any non-el-nino year with a sample size of at least thirty, so, say, 1978. What does your graph look like? Because it's ridiculous. You took a graph which the authors of the data say show that the Earth is warming, then "adjust" it based on only starting from 1998. I have posted graphs of 100 years, 1000 years, 2000 years, 10000 years, so no. You have posted 1998 over and over -- in fact, do a search on this forum for "1998" and tell me how many times it comes up. It's shameful. Well that entirely depends on the hosting service provided (some are even anonymous, in case you're interested.) But again, you have to actually show that there's something nefarious going on here rather than just pretending. What funding is realclimate receiving? They say they receive zero. In June 2007 China announced that it was making climate change a keystone of its energy policy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6717671.stm They are negotiating the current levels and yes, they left the G8 early to deal with riots. Kyoto part I runs out in three years, and Kyoto part II hasn't even been negotiated yet, so I don't see how you can predict what China will or won't agree to. Yes. So? They attended the meeting. Maybe. Maybe not. That's a theory (and a simplistic one.) More likely is that technological efficiency gains are adopted worldwide, just as CFL bulbs and LCD screens were. For example, I don't see developing nations rushing to fill the void in massive CFC production, thereby offsetting the entire reduction in CFC's in western countries. Why? Because technology has moved on.
Hey Dave, how many more times are you going to try to make this failed argument that since the climate changed we are responsible for it. Simply saying there was warming proves absolutely nothing. Keep trying to sell that snakeoil.
Until you guys clue in, I suppose. My persistence has paid off in other areas of my life, so I'm hopeful that I can eventually educate you last few holdouts. CO2 is, always, and will continue to absorb IR at the peak IR wavelengths and there is no way around it, no way to argue it, no way to say that we're not responsible for the CO2 and therefore not responsible for it. <img src="http://oz.deichman.net/uploaded_images/molecular_absorption_spectra-739540.gif"> </img>
I see you like to oversimplify an extremely complex and dynamic system. This is very typical of the left-wing. As stated several times before, CO2 LAGS temp. Your argument is wasted right there. BigDave, you were given three criteria that you had to convince me of. You have failed on all three. The GW scam is an orchestrated attempt by the left wing to provide the government an excuse to exercise control over the lives of its citizens. The public has no stomach for their ideas alone, so they must find some sort of smokescreen to mask their true intentions. These folks are trying to restrict transportation,to set up an elaborate system for global governance, to ban beef and other meat products, to control where people set their thermostats and to place draconian taxes on electricity. Their goals are well known. Make no mistake about it.
Hilarious. You're saying that I'm oversimplifying and then you say that there's a simple, linear relationship where CO2 always lags temperature. In fact, CO2 is concomittant with temperature. Additionally, you're discussing naturally occurring CO2 not man-made CO2 which is what we have today. You weren't convinced by graphs of temperature, CO2, sourced from NASA, the CRU, the IPCC, the NOAA and you're not "convinced" by energy absorption charts of molecular CO2. What would convince you? Frankly that sounds a little paranoid. I don't see any difference between the "meat is murder" folks and the "abortion is murder" folks, myself. Both want to control lives. Luckily, there's the moderate middle.
This is another strange assertion I have seen you make several times. Nature does not discriminate between between CO2. Its is CO2 period. A good deal of the charts you have posted were by Michael Mann, a known fraud. Here is a newsflash. The "hockey stick" chart has been debunked time and time again but you still use as if it were fact. This is dishonest. Second, you failed to state why you think the current climate is the optimum climate. The way I see it, the population density is a lot higher in Florida than it is in Northern Canada. I wonder why. Third you stated that we are controlling the climate now. If so, who is the climate controller. Who decided what the climate should be, and who decided what it will be? How can you make such a bizarre claim as, we controlled the climate? Thats three failures. Not cool. It sounds a little paranoid? Maybe you have not been paying attention. All of the goals that I included in the previous posts are goals explicitly stated by MMGW crowd. Do a little research. I am not sure what meat and abortion have to do with each other. If you are trying to make a MMGW into a debate about abortion, then you are nowhere near the moderate middle.
Let me explain: CO2 that was emitted due to temperature changes tens of thousands of years ago would be from natural sources. Back then, the CO2 would raise the temperature would then compound the greenhouse effect and make the temperature changes even worse. So temperature lagging CO2 (which isn't really correct anyway) wouldn't matter since we've already skipped right to the "dumping CO2 into the atmosphere" part and also skipped right to the compounding part of the temperature increase. You can see this in the increase in global average temperature graphs. Oh goody, another ad hom. Look, you pick whatever source you like. It doesn't matter. They all disagree with you. "Optimum climate" is just a silly phrase. The "optimum" could be +400K, but that doesn't help humans any. It's the drastic change of temperature and ocean levels that humans are concerned about. We have controlled the climate now (which can be seen by the global average temperatures which have increased due to CO2.) There is no other explanation. CO2 has increased, the CO2 comes from man. CO2 absorbs IR. Therefore man has added heat retention to the atmosphere. Simple as that. Well I'm doing the best I can -- but then I also made an astonishly bad Sunday school teacher.
Its CO2, its CO2, its CO2. You claim that nature discriminates different kinds of CO2 is bizarre. It makes zero sense. CO2 lagging Temp is true and it has been shown. I don't doubt that your fraudulent, sponsored by left wing greenies sources disagree with me, but there are countless sources that disagree with you. So whats your point? In order to take action against GW one must have to believe that the current temp is best climate and any deviance is dangerous. Since it cannot be determined that an increase in temp would be bad, why fight it. As stated before, the warmer areas have higher population densities than cold climates. Florida VS Northern Canada. Its crystal clear. Do you understand what the word "control" means? CO2 is not the dominant GH gas. How many more times are we going to cover that? Where? In Canada?
Luckily, I have never made that claim. Yes and no... "Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical (ie. smaller) timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesnât really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts." Well let's look at a graph from the University of Washington's Earth and Space sciences center -- notice where today's CO2 values are and that they're much, much higher than anytime in the past. Then notice how during the rises in CO2 (not where they spiked) the temperature increased along with it. Now look again at how forkin' high current CO2 levels are compared to history: <img src="http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/~steig/images/epicagore.gif"> </img> Ummm... no. We just have to look at the rise in ocean levels to see that its dangerous from a straight flooding pov. Well I consider flooding bad. Also, areas on the ocean have higher population densities. Hmmm.... Hold on, I'm still working on the word "do." Yes, it's true that there's a lot of water vapor -- luckily for us water rains in high concentrations. CO2 doesn't rain out at high concentrations.