Now that winter is drawing near (northern hemisphere), I see the global warming chatter has died down (right on cue).

Pediatric gynecologist wrote:

Looky here!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

Dang, dude. Now you are going to start bringing facts into this? WTF?

So, it looks like:

- The 16 warmest years on record all happened in the last 17 years.

- The 2000's have 11 of the top 12.

- 2012 looks like it will be #1 barring an extraordinary turn in the next 45 days.

Nope, no warming here.

Small lakes/ponds in my area have already started to freeze over.

Big John wrote:

Pediatric gynecologist wrote:

Before you start yelling about Wikipedia being an unreliable source, recognize that the figures come from the National Climate Data Center, not from the backyard thermometer of Uncle Cletus down in Tuscaloosa.

You sure about that?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCND/locations/ZIP:35401/detail

Nice one, Johnny. ;o)

But I don't think ol' Clete is the source of their data.

Don't we have to a bit cautious when using U.S. government data? The U.S. government (and many that buy the gov't. off) have a vested interested in cramming GW down our throat. Lots of $$ involved.

Blowing Rock, you are correct that there is a cyclical history shown through the ice cores (and thank you for bringing the discussion past the idiotic argument about 15 year time increments). I guess the larger question is what are we doing to contribute to that cyclical history?

No one is able to statistically tease out the human affect from natural trend, but there are a few facts that should give us pause.

1. Greenhouse gases are known to reflect radiant heat back into the atmosphere.

2. We are clearly contributing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through our actions.

Regardless of the magnitude, we are causing warming to some extent. This warming has a negative affect on communities worldwide that must adapt in some way, so we should do what we can to reduce our contribution, however large, to warming.

What's great about this post is that the graphs/figures provided actually show evidence supporting anthropogenic causes to current climate change trends. Did you look at the other figures on the webpage source for the second graph? That graph of temps from 400,000 years ago to present also indicates "...these rapid changes [temperature] suggest that climate may be quite sensitive to internal or external climate forcings and feedbacks." Hmmm, sensitive external climate forcings and feedbacks...oh right, like the shit-ton of CO2 that's been emitted into the atmosphere by human activity in the last 150 years.

I take it that by use of your sources that you now are aware of the vast body of evidence in support of AGW/climate change?

90hills wrote:

Don't we have to a bit cautious when using U.S. government data? The U.S. government (and many that buy the gov't. off) have a vested interested in cramming GW down our throat. Lots of $$ involved.

No, "we" don't. Where else do you expect to get it?

Also, I have to laugh at your idea that the government stands to make money by pushing global warming. In case you don't know this, the president of the U.S. between 1/2001 and 1/2009 was a man named George Bush, who was born into privilege thanks to fossil fuels, ran an oil company into the ground, and stocked his cabinet with fossil-fuel folks. So why did the NOAA and other gov't agencies continue to release data supporting climate change? And what about the governments of OTHER counties?

Think before you parrot bullshizzle. "We" don't want to look like unthinking drones, do "we"?

Pediatric gynecologist wrote:

Nice one, Johnny. ;o)

But I don't think ol' Clete is the source of their data.

It's Alabammy. There's a greater than 30% chance that the guy in charge of operating that weather station and clearing the birds' nests out and so forth is named Cletus.

My Name Is Judge wrote:

What's great about this post is that the graphs/figures provided actually show evidence supporting anthropogenic causes to current climate change trends. Did you look at the other figures on the webpage source for the second graph? That graph of temps from 400,000 years ago to present also indicates "...these rapid changes [temperature] suggest that climate may be quite sensitive to internal or external climate forcings and feedbacks." Hmmm, sensitive external climate forcings and feedbacks...oh right, like the shit-ton of CO2 that's been emitted into the atmosphere by human activity in the last 150 years.

I take it that by use of your sources that you now are aware of the vast body of evidence in support of AGW/climate change?

I got a kick out of that as well - BRM actually refuted himself. He also completely ignored what I said about the planet warming whether humans are contributing or not. And evidently I am both angry and a liberal for understanding, and giving credit to, basic facts and figures.

Also, BRM doesn't seem to understand that what happened before humans and their pollution was around bears no relationship at all to whether we can and do affect climate. He seems think think that climate scientists are unaware of natural cycles.

Bravo!

If we apply a Bayesian statistical approach to this problem, the apparently widespread belief among scientists (if one accepts the idea that acceptance of AGW is more common, among scientists, than either its rejection or fence-sitting) leads us to the clear conclusion that anthropogenic influence is "extremely probable" as a hypothetical cause of "global warming."

Personally, I remain a fence sitter. The Bayesian approach can fail miserably. Think Copernicus. WMD in Iraq. Y2K. ...

Still, very interesting data. I enjoy this topic, I find its science to be breathtakingly complex.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Since you're so fond of graphs from Wikipedia here's one for you. It's a compendium of temperature studies for the last 2,000 years. Unless you're too blinded by your (angry liberal) bias, you might notice that the current warming began roughly 300 years ago. The earth has been warming for several centuries, after cooling for several centuries, and it started long before man could possibly have been to blame:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Seriously dude? Looking at your graph there seems a major uptick in temperatures starting around 1900 (not around 1700 as you seem to want to claim).

90hills wrote:

Don't we have to a bit cautious when using U.S. government data? The U.S. government (and many that buy the gov't. off) have a vested interested in cramming GW down our throat. Lots of $$ involved.

Seriously dude? Do you really think the "Lots of $$ involved" related to the pro-GW crowd are more than a drop in the bucket compared to the $$ involved on the anti-GW side? Seriously? Ever heard of ExxonMobil? Chevron? How about Ford? GM? Peabody Energy?

Oh yeah, I am sure that the windmill lobby can totally outspend these guys.

Do you have any idea how ignorant your post makes you look? Any idea at all?

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

If you feel that 2,000 years ago is just as arbitrary as 1880, then here's a graph of temperatures that begins 400,000 years ago. You might notice that the global temperature goes up and down. It's never stable. Huh, how'd that happen without people doing it?:

http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years_25ae#

That is pretty interesting that the 5 peaks occurred at regular intervals. I wonder if we'll ever figure out what the real driving force behind temperature change is.

The dude abides wrote:

Easy to find if you search under global warming stopped...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

I thought that the scientific community was making big bucks promoting the global warming farce. Are you telling me that we can trust them now?

Despite what the paper says, there *has* been a slight warming trend ("slight", because 1998, for a variety of reasons, was one of the hottest on record). It is also true that 2000-2009 was the hottest decade since records began (second hottest? 1990s. Third hottest? 1980s) *and* that 2012 is going to be the hottest year since records began. This, despite the fact that we had two La Ninas (which depress temperatures) in that decade.

The use of 16 years as the yardstick is also interesting. Start measuring from almost any other year and you'll see a clear temperature increase. Gee, this looks an awful lot like cherry-picking a date to make the results come out the way you want.

I choose to start measuring from 400,000 years ago. Starting from some random time in the past few hundred years is much too small a sample size to be meaningful.

Zoo Keeper wrote:

I wonder if we'll ever figure out what the real driving force behind temperature change is.

*Loud, violent facepalm*

There is not just ONE such driving force. We know that. Blowing.Smoke Master is infusing this thread with a spectacular amount of Tard Juice by bringing up naturally occurring cycles of long standing.

Climatologists know better than anyone else that these cycles exist. They do not attribute things that happened, for hotter or for colder, almost half a million years ago to nonexistent endeavors by nonexistent humans.

If there were no such natural ebbs and surges, then there would be no controversy about AGW because we would be able to state with confidence that observed changes are necessarily the result of something that didn't exist before about 1850 -- to wit, factories spewing pollutants and gases into the atmisphere.

The trick of this delicate science is teasing out the impact human effects that are superimposed on the natural ones.

AGW deniers recognize that most conservative voters are too parochial-minded to grasp the idea of more than one thing factoring into an outcome. So they go with the "it's natural, silly!" even when they themselves know better -- they are more shady than dumb. If you don't think that strategy works, just have a look at the grossly misinformed posts by deniers right here and in the thread's previous pages.

The personal hostility level of the three most ardent global warming/climate change proponents here is very unappealing. I have no idea what makes people with a particular belief so hostile. They are either right or wrong, but too conceited to consider the second possiblity, and too judgemental about those who disagree with them to appear to be thoughtful themselves.

Intelligence, curiosity, and self restraint are the hallmarks of those who find truth sooner. Hostility in discussion is an indication of guilt, or concern over the weakness of one's own opinion, thus masked with hostility to those who disagree.

yes because when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the AGW model and yet you still have the constant dissent from the ignorant, stupid, wicked, and insane, then it becomes very hard to remain polite and patient.

Thread Reader wrote:

The personal hostility level of the three most ardent global warming/climate change proponents here is very unappealing. I have no idea what makes people with a particular belief so hostile. They are either right or wrong, but too conceited to consider the second possiblity, and too judgemental about those who disagree with them to appear to be thoughtful themselves.

Intelligence, curiosity, and self restraint are the hallmarks of those who find truth sooner. Hostility in discussion is an indication of guilt, or concern over the weakness of one's own opinion, thus masked with hostility to those who disagree.

[quote]middle professor wrote:

yes because when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the AGW model and yet you still have the constant dissent from the ignorant, stupid, wicked, and insane, then it becomes very hard to remain polite and patient.

/quote]

Damn straight.