“Monster” levels of greenhouse gases in 2010?
posted at 11:35 am on November 4, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Let’s see if you can figure out why this might not be the kind of news that advocates of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis might have wanted:
The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world’s efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.
The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. …
The world pumped about 564 million more tons of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That’s an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries – China, the United States and India, the world’s top producers of greenhouse gases.
It is a “monster” increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past.
I’m pretty sure that the AGW crowd will use this as a lever to scream for more action on CO2 emissions. The AP report certainly gives vent to the hysterical reaction thus far:
In 2007 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.
However, those estimates were based on models that assumed CO2 drove temperatures higher in proportion to emissions. Temperatures over more than a decade of increasing CO2 emissions show that’s not the case, however:
In fact, as CO2 emissions rose again to meet the demands of recovering economies, temperatures actually dipped. We had our coldest winter in more than a decade last year, and as the chart shows, the average temperature during the last decade remained static against the 1950-80 average. AGW models predicted constant rising temperatures, not 13 years (three not shown in the chart) of plateauing. Even if one makes the claim that accumulation matters more, the hypothesis is that we reached a saturation point for accumulation decades ago, and that’s why the warming in the latter half of the 20th century was driven by CO2 releases. Obviously, that’s not the case.
That’s why one of the Berkeley team told the Daily Mail that while CO2 might still be a factor in global climate, science is now looking at other reasons for the warming over the last century:
‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’ …
‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’
In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.
They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.
Imagine what will happen when people compare this “monster” release to temperatures over the next couple of years. Of course, that will only happen if temperatures increase. If they stay flat, or even decline, they’ll be doing their best to hide this monster.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
We’re all gonna die!!!!
Or something.
whatcat on November 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM
I sure wish the warming would hurry up. These heating bills during the winter are job killers.
Increasingly, at Christmas time I’m forced to decide…pay the gas bill, or participate in economic activity by purchasing loads of presents for friends and family they don’t want or like, thereby stimulating the economy.
Warm house…or Wal-Mart. The question for the era.
BobMbx on November 4, 2011 at 11:44 AM
What happened? Did somebody neuter Godzilla?
backwoods conservative on November 4, 2011 at 11:44 AM
How did they calculate the 6% increase in CO2 emissions? Did they use a computer model? Starting from last years base line? Kinda like the Federal Government’s ‘Base Line Budget’ figures?
Global climate scientist are so proficient that they can measure CO2 emissions, or do they just ‘estimate’?
Skandia Recluse on November 4, 2011 at 11:44 AM
It’s a matter of orthodoxy for them. They don’t THINK, they don’t even BELIEVE, they KNOW. They KNOW increased levels of CO2, and global warming, and the consequences, are all awful. Chicken Little had nothing on them. It’s not science to them. It’s a religion.
Paul-Cincy on November 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM
“Ed, stop writing about the science. Just embrace what your being told by a few “post-modern era” university professors. ”
- bayam
blink on November 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Also the world’s top three countries in population
Funny how that works out.
zmdavid on November 4, 2011 at 11:46 AM
But we have to do something for the children.
Oakland/ernesto at anytime.
chemman on November 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM
The very chart that Fat”happy ending”Albert uses in the Inconvenient Truth shows that temperature precedes rises in CO2 levels.
It is such a pity that people believe what he says even when the chart he shows them that he is wrong.
When the temp of the oceans rise dissolved CO2 is release in to the atmosphere.
“Henry’s Law”
It explains why when you open a hot beer it foams violently but a cold one does not.
Also when you are making beer or soda and you are using CO2 to carbonate you have to lower the temp of your keg in order for CO2 to dissolve into the liquid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law
esnap on November 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM
Does this I can fire up the charcoal barbie and grill a steak this weekend?
BacaDog on November 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM
And Australia is currently going through one of its coldest Springs on record.
Go figure.
OldEnglish on November 4, 2011 at 11:48 AM
Those graphs are more terrifying than nude pics of Helen Thomas.
Mike Honcho on November 4, 2011 at 11:49 AM
Carbon? I didn’t know carbon was even a gas, let alone a greenhouse gas.
Stupid people say what? I guess that makes water vapor a pollutant as well since it is a greenhouse gas? Why won’t we save the children from water vapor??
And excuse me if I refuse to ever consider CO2 a pollutant since without it we all die!
NotCoach on November 4, 2011 at 11:49 AM
Uh oh, more CO2. We need to get this stopped right away.
I’ll go get me checkbook. Which third world tyrant should I give my money to?
forest on November 4, 2011 at 11:50 AM
The global warming on earth is so severe the other planets are being effected by it.
“Spread the warmth around”
BobMbx on November 4, 2011 at 11:52 AM
Assuming BEST means:
Berkeley
Earth
Surface
Temperature report
Please correct me if my assumption is wrong.
Lawrence on November 4, 2011 at 11:53 AM
oh… I notice there is no mention of the creasing temperatures of the sun here lately causing a lot our direct temperature spikes… yet, as noted over time, the temperatures are still within the observed averages.
Lawrence on November 4, 2011 at 11:54 AM
Ummm…get out of the lab once in a while, go outside and look up in the sky. There’s this huge star that lights up the whole sky from 93 million miles away. And you know something? It’s very, very, very hot. At its core it’s around 27,000,000 degrees farenheit. I dunno, that might explain something.
Trafalgar on November 4, 2011 at 11:55 AM
According to the Mauna Loa measurements, CO2 rose by less than 1/2% in 2010 (2.42PPM annually).
If you look at the annual trend on the graph at the link above, there is nothing alarming nor out of the ordinary in the measured C02 rate. It’s still increasing at the same rates, and the temps are flat-lining this decade.
jwehman on November 4, 2011 at 11:57 AM
These guys don’t worry about facts.
Cindy Munford on November 4, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Sun.Spots.Earth.Etc.
SouthernGent on November 4, 2011 at 11:57 AM
There is a very simple scientific reason why increased CO2 could not possibly cause more warming. Its elementary, in fact.
Above 250 ppm, all the heat / light at the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs – IS GONE. There is no more for CO2 to absorb, so increasing the concentration of CO2 above that amount – DOES NOTHING.
The entire AGW theory relies completely on increasing water vapor to continue global warming. 100%. Despite the fact that there is no consensus whatsoever on the feedback effect of water vapor. Nevermind that you have to basically assume the earth’s eco-system is so fragile that increasing a trace gas in the atmosphere could then cause runaway, catastrophic global warming that could not be stopped. Ridiculous
How do they come out with such a ridiculous press release when they absolutely cannot show any AGW model ever produced that could explain how CO2 could continue to increase and global warming would not ?
deadrody on November 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM
I’ll bet it bites to get caught lying. In other news, we’ve cut 9 cords of wood. Hope it’s enough.
Kissmygrits on November 4, 2011 at 11:59 AM
silly me, I thought the science was settled.
rbj on November 4, 2011 at 11:59 AM
The “kicker” to that is to look at James Hansen’s “Three Scenarios” on projected warming that he presented in congressional testimony in ’98. His “best case” was that we halted CO2 increases in the year 2000. Back in the real world, our temperatures have been trending below his “best case scenario” ever since.
taznar on November 4, 2011 at 12:01 PM
I only want it to warm up enough that the seas rise and wipe out Zucotti Park.
Bishop on November 4, 2011 at 12:02 PM
Those invested heavily, are going to come out in droves and defend AGW. They have a lot to lose, and it’s not their lives, but their homes, money, cars, planes etc…
capejasmine on November 4, 2011 at 12:05 PM
It was those crazy man made volcanoes.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/top-volcanic-eruptions-of-2010.html
A more likely source of CO2 jump than humans.
Darth Odie on November 4, 2011 at 12:05 PM
LOL
capejasmine on November 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM
So by creating the EPA and burdensome environmental laws that drove American industries off shore to places that had little or no pollution regs, we have actually worsened the production of greenhouse gasses…and probably made the world more polluted overall?
Wow..how surprising!
DrW on November 4, 2011 at 12:09 PM
Sorry, his testimony was in 1988, not 98. Here’s a graph.
taznar on November 4, 2011 at 12:12 PM
Remember, this is Steve Chu’s DOE doing the calculations. I’m not prepared to bet $0.05 on their accuracy until they’ve been vetted by outsiders not riding of the warmist-academic/IPCC/WWF gravy train.
Atmospheric CO2 MEASUREMENT, as opposed to extrapolation of CO2 emissions from projections of energy use, typically comes IIRC from instruments on Mauna Loa, and is generally considered to be pretty accurate.
Note that the press and the warmist community has now gone all-in on the “climate change creates severe weather” crap.
JEM on November 4, 2011 at 12:15 PM
May I suggest the big ball of fire as the source? My 3rd grade teacher told that to our class in 70′s :-)
antisocial on November 4, 2011 at 12:16 PM
I believe that the exact moment when the temperature stopped rising is when algore uttered the words “the science is settled.”
pedestrian on November 4, 2011 at 12:18 PM
Hmmm. Did someone fart diamonds in front of this AP reporter?
MNHawk on November 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM
In my naive little world, I have a strong belief that the universe is a product of intelligent design. We humans live and breathe on a planet perfectly created to support us and other forms of life. To think that the designer would give the product of our exhalation the potential to move us toward extinction is anathema to me.
Jeffster on November 4, 2011 at 12:32 PM
Plants breathe CO2, so, more CO2 means bigger plants, more crop yield, more arable land, etc. Better put a stop to all that!
Akzed on November 4, 2011 at 12:33 PM
Uh, not to overstate the obvious, but wouldn’t solar radiation be the FIRST place you would study when it came to warming the planet? Just sayin’.
jjverdi on November 4, 2011 at 12:37 PM
Yes, the nature of the scientific community is to hide facts. Because there’s a global conspiracy to trick the world into believing in a falsified theory- and the most distinguished scientists from other fields of academia and the top research universities in the US and Europe are all involved.
Lesson- don’t trust them scientists. Don’t let your kids become scientists.
bayam on November 4, 2011 at 12:37 PM
I had 10″ of snow on the Halloween blizzard and was out of power for 5 days. Libs, do not preach to me about “Global warming” ever again. Or run the risk of getting your ass kicked.
And enough with “global climate change,” too. You lose credibility when the obvious evidence doesn’t back up your previous theory so you change the terminology to fit.
crazy_legs on November 4, 2011 at 12:40 PM
Looks like the increase of CO2 stabilizes the climate…now what?
right2bright on November 4, 2011 at 12:43 PM
I have an excellent article for you to read. Perhaps after reading it you might learn how pseudoscience sometimes invades the mainstream.
NotCoach on November 4, 2011 at 12:43 PM
What’s the matter, little one? “Hide the decline” still sting? Here’s a clue. When your own religion starts embarrassing you, instead of lashing out, think about changing your religion.
Being a leftist piece of garbage really must suck, in the year 2011.
And junior. Until corrupted by leftist garbage, the “nature of the scientific community” used to be finding out how the world works, not corrupting the scientific method, working back to a pre-determined conclusion.
Now back to your Poli Sci class, child. Your professor is calling.
MNHawk on November 4, 2011 at 12:48 PM
Global temperatures took a nosedive in October. We are currently 1/10 of 1 degree above the long term average:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2011.png
The running 13 month average temperatures peaked in 2009 (due to a rather large El Nino condition in 2010 which caused the peak there) and appears to have started to fall (the first time the 13 month average has fallen since the 1980s).
Temperatures in October feel in all regions of the globe (Northern and Southern Hemisphere, tropics, temperate, and polar regions) and this appears to be a reflection of a current La Nina condition that is setting up in the Pacific (look for dry weather to continue in Texas and a cold, snowy winter in the Northern Plains).
crosspatch on November 4, 2011 at 12:49 PM
I’m beginning to wonder what temperature data the B(ers)erkely people cherry-picked, because most of the more comprehensive data sets, especially that of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, show a sharp peak in 1998, followed by lower temperatures since then–why does the upper graph above NOT show a decline after 1998?
Here in the northeastern United States, we have undergone extensive deforestation and a sharp increase in CO2 emissions over the past…week! The cause was not global “warming”, but a freak early SNOW landing on trees still full of green leaves, causing hundreds of thousands of them to break under the weight of snow. Since hundreds of thousands of people no longer have electricity to light their oil and gas furnaces, they’ve started heating their homes with WOOD (lots of it around here these days!) which emits more CO2 than oil and gas per unit heat generated.
WARNING WARNING WARNING!!! SNOW causes DEFORESTATION and HIGH CO2 emissions!!!
When will these morons ever figure out that the total energy that can be absorbed over the narrow CO2 infrared absorption bands is LIMITED, and that 98% of it is already absorbed by the current CO2 concentrations? Even with 10 times the current CO2 concentration, the temperature MIGHT increase a few tenths of a degree–MAXIMUM!!!
The IPCC is trying to use a faulty equation from 1896 which has been debunked decades ago to “predict” the future. If somebody there would study a little PHYSICS, they would find out that there is an absolute maximum limit on the warming that could EVER be caused by CO2 alone, which is MUCH less than 4 degrees Fahrenheit.
If the Global-Warming scaremongers are really worried about rising sea levels at less than 2 millimeters per year, spending trillions of dollars to capture, compress, and bury CO2 in the ground won’t help whatsoever. By the end of the century, at this rate the sea level would rise by about 8 inches–wouldn’t it be much cheaper to build an 8-inch high sea wall wherever needed?
Steve Z on November 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM
Also note that 2010 El Nino did not cause temperatures to rise as high as the 1998 El Nino did. Actually what we are seeing is not a “steady” rise in temperatures but a step increase that happened after the 1998 El Nino condition as can be seen in this graphic from Judith Curry’s blog:
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/fig-1-jc.jpg
And here:
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/fig-2-jc1.jpg
So they use “trending” and “smoothing” techniques to portray the “warming” as if it is gradual in step with CO2 rise when it is not. We had a condition in 1998 that caused a step rise in global temperatures when we had a HUGE El Nino followed by several smaller ones. Now we are going into a period of several La Nina events so it will be interesting to see if the temperatures step back down in response.
crosspatch on November 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM
Because the graph uses a 10 year average for its plot points.
NotCoach on November 4, 2011 at 12:55 PM
The Designer created many forms of life (trees, grass, and phytoplankton, among others) that use the CO2 we exhale and sunlight to make food for themselves and everything else that lives on this planet. Breathe a good long sigh of relief, and feed your lawn in the process.
Steve Z on November 4, 2011 at 12:58 PM
I sympathize!
Here’s my suggestion: You could pay the gas bill and then use your nice warm house to have a party for your family and friends (F&Fs). Buying food for the party will stimulate the economy at least somewhat, even though you wouldn’t be spending as much money — well, unless you buy expensive booze! :-) (Credit for this idea goes to a pair of my friends who have an annual December tradition of hosting our crowd at a lovely brunch at a local restaurant, as a clutter-free Christmas present to all their friends and loved ones.)
Another possibility: If you can keep your sanity while doing so, you could use your nice warm house to have a party for all your nieces, nephews, little cousins, and friends’ children, while your F&Fs go Christmas shopping without little ones in tow, or just have some grown-up time for themselves, while you stimulate the economy a wee bit by buying kid snacks and renting cartoon videos. Your F&Fs will thank you profusely! :-)
Mary in LA on November 4, 2011 at 12:58 PM
Funny how those graphs match our economy.
moonsbreath on November 4, 2011 at 1:04 PM
Hoaxes
tx2654 on November 4, 2011 at 1:06 PM
The inconvenient truth
Dr Evil on November 4, 2011 at 1:07 PM
The flattening out of the lower graph is consistent with other data sets, especially the satellite temperature data. What is also consistent is the AGW crowd’s lack of adequate explanation for why the temperatures aren’t going up when all the computer models say they should be. At the beginning of the flat trend, they said that global warming was still going on, but was being counteracted by other, natural, climate change forces. How did they know it was still going on? Because AGW had been “proven” by there being no known natural climate change forces strong enough to cause the previously observed temperature rise! Now THAT’s “scientific thinking” for you.
A more recent explanation is that the missing heat has somehow been absorbed by the oceans and hidden away in their unfathomable depths. How did this warm water happen to miss the thousands of Argo oceanic probes which had been looking for just that? It must have snuck past them, just as the upper-atmosphere equatorial heating all the models predicted must have snuck past year’s worth of weather balloons that were looking for it.
AGW theorists will next tell us that aliens are fueling their flying saucers on our global warming, reducing the heat that just has to be there to immeasurable levels.
Socratease on November 4, 2011 at 1:15 PM
I don’t know about that, but it seems doubtful that the earth’s climate systems would be as stable as we know they are if they had built-in positive feedback mechanisms that amplify small imbalances and tended to drive it to extremes of temperature. One or more negative feedback systems that are occasionally overwhelmed is much more likely, and very strong proof should be required for any theory (like AGW) that requires the opposite assumption.
Socratease on November 4, 2011 at 1:22 PM
The two charts being used to illustrate an “Inconvenient Truth” are an embarrassment. Comparing compressed long term timelines to shorter uncompressed data is a classic tactic designed to deceive, and skeptics should have no part of it!
If you scaled down the most recent data to fit in the first chart, it would hardly look any different from the dips & rises which characterize the incline.
The charts you should be using — which would support the actual point of this column — would pit the flat temperatures of the last decade with the precipitous rise in greenhouse gases over the same period of time. It is the collapse of predictive modeling which is the most damning indictment of global warming “science.”
JM Hanes on November 4, 2011 at 1:28 PM
And yet, night before last, to got down to 12 degrees here, 100 miles north of the border with Mexico. Cold enough to burst one of my water pipes…. I figured (wrongly) that I had a few weeks left before I needed to plug in the pipe heaters.
LegendHasIt on November 4, 2011 at 1:45 PM
can we just give Al Gore a billion dollars to shut the F$%# up???
SDarchitect on November 4, 2011 at 1:45 PM
Why not hook your heaters up to a temprature sensor and let them kick on automatically?
NotCoach on November 4, 2011 at 1:59 PM
Actually they have built in thermostats, but because I am still doing construction around them, they aren’t plugged in.
LegendHasIt on November 4, 2011 at 2:22 PM
Simple explanation – the computer models are crappy, and don’t give accurate predictions
krome on November 4, 2011 at 2:25 PM
That’s a part of it, but only a small part. The upper graph uses a smoothing algorithm that essentially erased the leveling-off in the last decade, so it wouldn’t have been evident regardless of the scale. It’s when you turn off the smoothing that you get the flat line for the last 10 years.
Socratease on November 4, 2011 at 2:25 PM
Ah, yes, the dreaded smoothing Al-Gore-Ithm. ‘Nuff said.
Jeffster on November 4, 2011 at 2:34 PM
The same people making future climate projections can’t even tell you with 100% certainty if it will rain or snow next week.
GarandFan on November 4, 2011 at 3:06 PM
I can tell you with absolute certainty that it will both rain and snow next week.
NotCoach on November 4, 2011 at 3:09 PM
bah humbug. And I was just being sarcastic.
I keep an oil fire burning in my backyard. This maintains some continuous addition of CO2 and other nasty gasses to the atmosphere, like a big FU to anyone who cuts off a light when they’re not in the room, or doesn’t let their car idle for more than a minute.
I feel like I have to do something. Maybe..my own private Occupy the Atmosphere?
BobMbx on November 4, 2011 at 3:31 PM
I feel guilty when I don’t burn something. I need a way to assuage my guilt. If only someone would start a business where I can purchase the ability to have someone else burn twice as much as I do. I would feel a lot better than about my lack of burning potential.
NotCoach on November 4, 2011 at 3:44 PM
Just imagine what this group of “Experts” could do with mother’s milk! Why every genius and every mass murder started on mother’s milk so with a few charts they could “Prove” that’s what caused both phenomena. Pelosi just did the same thing by stating that without the huge stimulus we would have 15% unemployment. How does she know and what information did she use? She just knows!
inspectorudy on November 4, 2011 at 4:11 PM
You’re both invited to my Christmas party. My kind of people! :-)
Mary in LA on November 4, 2011 at 4:58 PM
DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide) is already found to be present in extremely high quantities in mother’s milk. An astonishing 100% of “at-risk” infants, developmentally-disabled children, and juvenile delinquents are found to have high levels of DHMO tissue saturation, in some cases as high as 70 – 75 percent by weight. Ban DHMO!
Mary in LA on November 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM
This isn’t true for the real scientific community. But it certainly is true for the pseudo-scientific community that justifies it’s anti-scientific methods by claiming that we now live in the post-modern era science age in which scientists aren’t required to show their data or code.
Plenty of commenters on here ARE scientists. Why wouldn’t they trust themselves?
And why wouldn’t I trust a scientist that discloses all of her raw data, algorithms, and code?
This is good advice. Better to let them be art historians so that they are at the mercy of whatever some group of people calling themselves scientists decides to tell them.
blink on November 4, 2011 at 6:42 PM
Congratulations, Ed! Your completely off-the-mark comments and total lack of scientific literacy once again have you true to form.
Let’s see, where to begin?
Global carbon dioxide levels are at a record high – and this is news? We’re still burning fossil fuels, Ed.
Well, Ed. You kind of have to be nuts to want AGW to be playing out as the scientific consensus has been predicting for the last four decades. This really isn’t the type of news anyone wants to hear – that the earth is warming, bringing all the climate changes that are inevitable, including severe droughts and storms.
Maybe in your mind. Of course, due to your lack of scientific background, and no understanding of what “proportional” means. In any case, such complex systems such as climate patters aren’t linear, particularly when PDO and solar output variations and other events intervene. BTW, we are in a solar minimum, and the Chinese are belching out high-sulfur coal by the megatons, and the global averages haven’t decreases as one would expect due to these effects.
I’ll bet you haven’t bothered to venture out as far as Dr. Curry’s blog, have you Ed? Responsible journalists (such as Allapundit) would do this, but that’s quite beyond you. Afraid of finding out what her take really is on AGW, as well as Dr. Muller’s recent offerings?
“We”? Ed, are you referring to your backyard or to the global average? Check it out, Ed, if you dare. Also, you probably haven’t checked out the statistics on the U.S.’s recent summer stats.
If you really think that, or if you had any authoritative source, you would be able to tell what drove that warming. Can’t do that, can you Ed?
Ed, you’re way over your head in this subject. Not to mention overly and intentionally un-informed.
oakland on November 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM
Pot meet kettle.
The fact that these record levels haven’t caused any warming in over a decade is certainly news to people like you. But you’ll probably just deny that this is the case – since you’re a denier.
Except that what the religious warmists want is to enact excessive government regulation and when it doesn’t play out as they claimed it would they lose support. Which is good because even excessive regulations can’t reduce global emissions enough to matter anyway.
There have always been severe droughts and storms and these will continue. How is that climate change?
Ha! Yes! Anything that relies on positive feedback is definitively NOT linear. It’s also quite irrational to assume that global temperatures are so unstable.
Ha ha ha! This is probably the first time you’ve claimed that solar activity has anything to do with global temperatures. And it’s interesting that you claim that sulfur is keeping the earth cool. Why wasn’t that modeled? Gee, they didn’t even model clouds so why would they model sulfur?
Ed’s already covered some of the many problems associated with Muller’s sloppy work. And I don’t think you want to be relying on Curry’s opinion. She doesn’t look too favorably on most warmists.
Stats? What stats? Do you mean temperature record? If so, you probably haven’t checked out global temperatures for October. Way, way, down.
And neither can you.
Pot, I thought I already introduced you to Kettle.
oakland, let me know when you’re ready to admit that the Mann Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked. Let me know when you’re ready to admit that the assumption of positive feedback is baseless and irrational. Basically, let me know when you’re ready to discuss this scientifically.
blink on November 4, 2011 at 8:21 PM
I suspect that I have a bit more scientific training than Mr. Morrissey. Possibly more than you as well.
Frequency. What do you know about the CEI?
Then you need to explain to Mr. Morrissey what “non-linear” is.
What do you mean by “so unstable”?
First time you’ve heard me “claim”. Why on earth wouldn’t solar activity affect climate? Why haven’t temperatures cooled when we recently went into a solar minimum? You deniers kept claiming that cooling would happen in the mid-aughts. Never happened.
Stats and facts such as these. The ones denialists dismiss as “manipulated”.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
No. I am not a scientist (even though I have extensive training). But I don’t make claims to certainty like Mr. Morrissey does. What do you read about the cause of the warming since the 70′s? Scientific literature I have read points to greenhouse gases emitted by combustion of fossil fuels.
As soon as you can define this (which so far, you haven’t been able to do), maybe we can talk scientifically. You have to use scientific terminology, and “hockey stick” isn’t such.
Let me know when you understand the concept of positive feedback, and what scientists have enumerated as possible positive feedback mechanisms in induced global warming.
And, have
read Dr. Curry’s blogs recently (or at all)?
oakland on November 4, 2011 at 8:48 PM
You don’t seem to.
No way.
Are you sheepishly trying to claim that severe droughts and storms will inevitably occur with more frequency?? If so, then you don’t understand the definition of the word inevitable.
Enough. Why? Are you going to blindly quote from a study that you’ve never scrutinized?
Do I really need to teach you about stability or are you just pretending to be stupid?
Are you still pretending that you don’t know what catastrophic warming is?
I don’t know. I’m not a warming alarmist. Ask them.
A pot can still heat even if the burner is turned slightly lower. A minimum by present standards is meaningless compared to ice age standards.
Why do you prefer cherry picked data points in text format instead of graphs? You’re definitely not very scientific.
Let’s talk about global temperatures, let’s talk about ocean heat, and let’s talk about polar ice scientifically instead of unscientifically.
Really? The word “inevitable” is absolutely a claim to certainty. You wrote, “bringing all the climate changes that are inevitable, including severe droughts and storms.” What other false claims do you want to make?
What do you mean by this? That you are definitively concluding that warming is due to combustion of fossil fuels? On what basis do you jump to definitively conclude unidirectional causation instead of mere correlation?
Again, here’s the hockey stick itself. Now you have no excuse to pretend that you don’t know what it is.
Ha ha. Yeah, keep hiding behind this. You just make yourself look stupid by pretending that you don’t know what it is.
I know EVERYTHING about positive feedback conceptually, quantitatively, and formulaically for both natural and control systems. Why are you asking? Do you need me to explain it to you?
Possible? Possible? Possible? Possible? Possible? Possible? Possible? Possible?
Are you actually admitting that scientists are unsure if positive feedback mechanisms exist or not?
And I’m extensively familiar with their contended mechanisms.
Now, please explain how it’s rational to assume that the earth’s climate system is so unstable as to be so overly sensitive to a 1°C of warming that such little warming can be so catastrophic? And stop pretending that you don’t know the definition of catastrophic. And don’t pretend that warming alarmists don’t claim that global warming will be catastrophic – unless you WANT me to make you look even more foolish.
Of course I have. Several times per week.
blink on November 4, 2011 at 9:23 PM
So let’s recap:
Dave Rywall continues to be AWOL, possibly in shock.
Oakland is in denial, possibly on the brink of despair.
But, Bayam takes the lead, shifting staright to anger, and simply lashing out, not even trying to argue any more.
Congrats, man. You’re almost through it.
Phil-351 on November 4, 2011 at 10:41 PM