12 month long drop in temps wipe out a century of warming

RM291946 wrote:

Dan-
The chart shows a 12 month drop, not just one month..

Well, the initial "drop" was down from a peak to a more average level. That's just regression towards the mean. The real drop is in the last few months. The "El Nina" phenomenon has something to do with that as well. If the temperatures remain down there for a long time, it can be called a real and significant drop.

With figure one, it's not attempting to highlight that we are at an average. It's point was to show the spike during the medieval warming period, and the quick drop during the little ice age..To show that we have not, by any means, had the more "stable" climate that corrupted scientists like Mann are trying to claim we did. Mann and the like are attempting to dupe people into thinking we had a stable climit till humans came along and caused the heat to rise, so they can pin the blame on us.

It also is to show that while we had been warming up since the little ice age (big revelation there :roll:) it is still not as hot as it was in a period prior to industrialisation..In otherwords, if we are causing the warming, what made it hotter than it is today before we industrialised?

I have no idea who this "Mann" charcter is, but the science of global warming depends on no one man. I suppose he's one of Gore's people, and from what I've gathered, Gore does lay it on thick and overly simplified.

Noone is contesting that there have been a lot of variation in the temperature in the past, also well above today's levels. But it is not an argument either way in whether the current warming has got some help from us or not. The planet lives well with temperature changes. It's our current civilization and it's closeness to water that are causing problems for us with a slight diffence in temperature.

With figure 5, you have to bear in mind that there are other causes for temperature changes. Volcanos erupting, position of the earth in regards to the sun (ice reflects more heat, ocean absorbs more..etc, which means it is still being affected by the sun..)..If a comet hits, it has the same cooling effect as an eruption. More rain equals more warmth..etc.

But as you see in fig.3, firstly the drop near the 30's should be disregarded as Nok pointed out about the measuring methods being used during that period..Otherwise, the arctic air temps correlate more with the solar activity, and don't match up with the hydrocarbon use.

...and humans adding loads of carbon to the atmosphere may also be an accessory. That the curves dont follow, could mean that it didn't have much of an effect, until a certain threshold was reached. At least from the 60s correlates decently with the upwards swing. The point is really that you can't look at any one effect, which is what is mostly done in these tables. The IPCC looks at all the factors combined and checks for effects in the model. After checking for many other variables, human activity is highly likely to have an impact.

And with fig.10, if the 2 are counted as on the line by you, then the other 3 touching it should count as "on" the line as well (talk about skewing). Making for only 6 that are above it, and therefore making it very similar to what is shown for the 50's and 60's, only then, there were a lot more hurricanes in general. With that said, the vast majority hit on, or right near, the average.

This is where I mean that a mean value doesnt paint the right picture. Drawing a regression line along the dots, you'd get an increasing line from the 90s onwards that much more closely follows the data. An exponential equation would slightly drop until the 70s, and then gradually build upwards from the 90s. Means can be misleading, as they depend heavily on where you start counting to make it.

I did not alter these charts. They are posted as they were given by the sources. Figures 1, 3, and 5 are from giss, and the last 4 all come from the same source as listed with fig, 7 and 8 (too much to type out again..)

I didnt say that you were doing the misleading. I am just saying that how data is presented graphically has an impact on how the data is viewed. A regular culprit, particularly in the media, is changing the scales on the sides to make changes look more dramatic.

Here, to gather some clout, they must conduct studies that conclusively show that W pr m2 has a relation with temperature, and how much. And also add to existing models to show that it makes for a better explanation.

I'm not saying they are full of it, it should certainly be looked into. But this evidence doesnt prove anything, it just asks questions that are not answered. The current climate change models include a plausible mechanism for the warming, as we know CO2 holds on to heat, and that we are releasing it at increasing amounts continuously. (as well as cutting down the carbon sinks, ie trees) The planet has had a carbon cycle that traps carbon under the ground for millions of years in rock. We are pumping it out and adding to the atmosphere far faster than is taken up by the rocks and seabed. If this model is to be dislodged, we need another, better explanation of plausible explanations. And I hope someone makes the effort. But so far, the by far most respected, accepted and substantiated model is that we indeed have had a significant impact. It may be that the temperature is naturally rising, but we may be speeding it up further than it otherwise would.

More science is definitely and continuously needed, but for now, we must prepare from what we know now. Not just hope the model is wrong and go on about our business unchanged.

Peace
Dan

RM291946 wrote:

The temps remained down there for a full year after that initial 12 month drop. And this Jan. has made records for how cold it is..My personal opinion is that the temps are going to coninue to stay low for some time to come. Last year there was zero solar activity. It's expected to stay that way, or at least close to it.

I take it you are not referring to the first graph in the op now. There, there's a temp spike in like march, going back to the mean, and around july/august starts to drop.

I don't think I understand what you are mean about living close to water?

By that I mean that temperatures dont have to rise much relative to former periods of time to have a devastating effect on us here and now. Since we all live near water, a couple of meters rise really fucks us up. So, going deep historical isn't really telling us anything, apart from the possible variations. And that the climate has in the past varied more than what is seen now, is not an argument either way about the current changes.

Highly likely in science is like highly likely in medicine. Would you take a medicine that is only highly likely to help an ailment, or would you prefer something that is more conclusive?

But "highly likely" is usually as good an answer as you'll ever get both in science AND medicine. MEdicines are dispensed if they are showed to have an effect on a certain percentage point of patients above the placebo level. It's not as solid as you'd might think. When scientists say "highly likely", they really say, "This is just about certain from what we know now (but we always leave nominal room for alternative options)". Highly likely things have been wrong before, and stuff that are highly likely have been highly likely for so long we treat it as law. There are very few things you'd get a scientist to claim rock solid truth on, unless it's about something that hasn't been disputed for, say, a century.

Otherwise, I dont think we are that much at disagreement. Other sources must be checked out, and there is definitely a lot more science and investigation needed. But since the consequences can be so dire, and the most credible present evidence point in that direction, we cannot afford to disregard our effect on the global temperature, as well as other environmental issues.

Peace
Dan