The Great Global Warming Swindle

gwb-trading · Jan 30, 2013

Quote from jem:

Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolutionâs upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.

Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

In 2000, the UNâs IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UNâs IPCC did not know or did not think significant.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...rth-is-cooling/
More...

Your link is not working - here is an amended one:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...lobal-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

futurecurrents · Jan 30, 2013

Quote from jem:

the odd thing is I produce science which shows the universe appears fine tuned and you deny science...

Then when I ask you to prove man made CO2 causes warming on earth
you give us nothing.

water vapor is a greenhouse gas too. so what.
are you arguing water vapor leads warming...
as temperature goes up saturation goes up.
or could it be that water vapor causes temperature goes up.
No more hot showers.

look at this chart it is more alarming than co2.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Dewpoint.jpg
More...

Are you OK?

I HAVE shown you proof that CO2 causes temps to rise.

Here it is for the umpteenth time. The data is correct, really.

trefoil · Jan 30, 2013

Quote from gwb-trading:

Your link is not working - here is an amended one:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...lobal-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/
More...
Code:
 2000      0.40      0.50
 2001      0.52      0.50
 2002      0.60      0.53
 2003      0.59      0.58
 2004      0.52      0.59
 2005      0.65      0.59
 2006      0.59      0.57
 2007      0.62      0.59
 2008      0.49      0.59
 2009      0.59      0.58
 2010      0.66      0.57
The left figure is the anomaly over/under the base (1951-1980), the right is the five year average.
From here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

If you can find a cooling in there, one of us is counting backwards.

Opinions are one thing, facts are something else. There was no cooling.

gwb-trading · Jan 30, 2013

Quote from trefoil:

Code:

2000 0.40 0.50 2001 0.52 0.50 2002 0.60 0.53 2003 0.59 0.58 2004 0.52 0.59 2005 0.65 0.59 2006 0.59 0.57 2007 0.62 0.59 2008 0.49 0.59 2009 0.59 0.58 2010 0.66 0.57

The left figure is the anomaly over/under the base (1951-1980), the right is the five year average.
From here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

If you can find a cooling in there, one of us is counting backwards.

Opinions are one thing, facts are something else. There was no cooling.
More...
So what you are saying is that the earth has had many 100 year periods in which the global termperature varied by 1 degree C. Many of them before man even appeared on the planet.

Over the past 100 years the global temperature has changed less than 1 degree C.... so basically we are in a century of statistical underperformance in terms of global temperature change.

Good to see you presenting data acknowledging the fact that 'global warming' is not a concern.

trefoil · Jan 30, 2013

Quote from gwb-trading:

So what you are saying is that the earth has had many 100 year periods in which the global termperature varied by 1 degree C. Many of them before man even appeared on the planet.

Over the past 100 years the global temperature has changed less than 1 degree C.... so basically we are in a century of statistical underperformance in terms of global temperature change.

Good to see you presenting data acknowledging the fact that 'global warming' is not a concern.
More...

Oh please. The guy from the mail-order/online university that no one ever heard of said he predicted there would be a cooling from 2000 to 2010.
There wasn't.

futurecurrents · Jan 30, 2013

Quote from trefoil:

Code:

2000 0.40 0.50 2001 0.52 0.50 2002 0.60 0.53 2003 0.59 0.58 2004 0.52 0.59 2005 0.65 0.59 2006 0.59 0.57 2007 0.62 0.59 2008 0.49 0.59 2009 0.59 0.58 2010 0.66 0.57

The left figure is the anomaly over/under the base (1951-1980), the right is the five year average.
From here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

If you can find a cooling in there, one of us is counting backwards.

Opinions are one thing, facts are something else. There was no cooling.
More...
Ha. Good work. I think you found the problem. The deniers think up is down ! LOL

jem · Jan 30, 2013

Quote from trefoil:

Code:

2000 0.40 0.50 2001 0.52 0.50 2002 0.60 0.53 2003 0.59 0.58 2004 0.52 0.59 2005 0.65 0.59 2006 0.59 0.57 2007 0.62 0.59 2008 0.49 0.59 2009 0.59 0.58 2010 0.66 0.57

The left figure is the anomaly over/under the base (1951-1980), the right is the five year average.
From here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

If you can find a cooling in there, one of us is counting backwards.

Opinions are one thing, facts are something else. There was no cooling.
More...
so when you add those years up...
do you find an increase in warming outside the margin for error?
I see temperatures bouncing around fairly close to each other..

and you take those temperatures back to 1996... you will see for sure there is no warming detectable outside the margin for error.

So thank you for proving one of the points I was making.

jem · Jan 30, 2013

Quote from futurecurrents:

Are you OK?

I HAVE shown you proof that CO2 causes temps to rise.

Here it is for the umpteenth time. The data is correct, really.

More...

wow - you keep posting the same scare monger chart and yet you have no idea what it means.

so break it down for us..
show us how CO2 leads temperature on your chart.

If you do you will get a nobel prize.

If you look closely you will see spots where CO2 goes up but temperature goes down.

pspr · Jan 30, 2013

http://whyfiles.org/211warm_arctic/images/1000yr_change.jpg

Sorry FC but that chart is totally worthless. I guess that is how you get to your assumption, by presenting a chart that can't be correlated properly.

Why don't you use one of the many charts jem has presented showing the same data only in a relatable format? Maybe because all those charts clearly show you are wrong?

futurecurrents · Jan 30, 2013

Quote from jem:

so break it down for us..
show us how CO2 leads temperature on your chart.

More...

So I guess you think the temps just happened to go up when we started putting lots of CO2 in the air. Quite a coincidence there.