Thread: Global Warming vs Global Cooling ... Can the earth Survive?

Originally Posted by RayTomes

Why does the forum make the graphic so small? (Yes, I know it is a thumbnail, I mean after clicking that)
The data is in CSV file format which can be loaded into a spreadsheet.

I'm not sure. I use Photobucket.com, which does not restrict the graphic in any way. It's free, too.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Not so. The current run-up in has already accumulated more than mugalien's best candidate for a spike in the past. If the current run-up reverses itself tomorrow, it will have accumulated more than twice as much as did mugalien's spike.

I find this very interesting, given the fact that I selected the current CO2 run-up as the exact value for the spike prior to testing my hypothesis.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...e_Science.htmlhttp://sidc.oma.be/KalmanOutputs/SMC.../figKFSMCM.jpgSo tell me, folks - what do you think about this graph?



The caption beneath is reads: "Sunspot activity is directly related to global temperature cycles. Please explain how CO2 emissions here on Earth affect sunspot activity..."

I find it very interesting that the AGW folks predicted an accelerating temperature rise over the last 12 years, yet something quite different happened: Sunspot activity during the last cycle took a nosedive (almost non-existent), while the rising temperatures hit a plateau.

Meanwhile sunspot activity is back on an upswing. No doubt as the temperature creeps back up, the AGWs will claim the temp plateau was merely a "hiccup" and that GW is back in full force.

For more information on what's causing what, click here.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Your 1484-year time span is only an average. The actual data were collected where it was available. They were not collected on evenly-spaced intervals.

Provided it's a statistically significant percentage of the data population, and reasonably random, sample data is nearly as good (within a percent or two) as the population data.

The data clearly show that global levels have risen almost monotonally for the past 250 years. If this rise is a natural spike, then it is unreasonable to assume that it will return to baseline precipitously. In the most reasonable assumption that is favorable to you, the spike will take as long to drop naturally to baseline as it did to rise naturally to its current level. If the spike begins to drop tomorrow, then it will have endured for 500 years before disappearing. This also means that one of your natural spikes would add one-third (1/3) of its peak value to the unspiked level in the data.

Your assumptions with respect to a symmetric return to baseline would only be reasonable if the temperature rise were created by a constant man-made input of CO2 that began 250 years ago, and if it were shut off today, completely. In fact, man-made inputs of CO2 have been steadily growing for the last few thousand years, most notable over the last 250 years commensurate with the rise in industrialization.

Since man-made CO2 input has not been steady, and since it will not magically disappear today, your assumption and conclusions are both quite irrational.

Let's hypothesize we were to find an incredibly cheap source of nearly limitless energy. Ignoring for a moment that use of any energy source produces heat as a final product of the usage cycle of energy, we would probably witness a 10-year weaning from petroleum used as a fuel.¹ Would we witness a ten-year drop in CO2 levels to pre-1700 levels? Of course not. But it wouldn't be a 250-year drop, either. I suspect it would be closer to about 25 years, as the Earth has several mechanisms for sequestering atmospheric CO2 in rather huge amounts.

On the other hand, evidence exists that CO2 levels have risen and declined commensurate with global temperatures several times in Earth's past, and long before mankind was anything but a dot.

You continue to deny global climate change...

This ridiculous charge is typical of AGWs. I say ridiculous because it's both a logical fallacy (straw man attack) as well as utterly false. I don't deny global climate change at all! Earth's historical evidence clearly tells us we're a world of change, with a climate that's been both significantly hotter as well as significantly colder than it is today.

What I deny is that our current, and comparatively recent, yet slight rise in temperatures is the result of anthropogenic factors. Indeed, if Earth's temperature fluctuations and CO2 levels are either caused by sunspot activity, or by a third, as of yet unknown factor which influences both, then we would rationally theorize that it should have a similar effect on other planets as well.

And, well, golly gee, guess what we see? Yep, you guessed it -- rising temperatures:

Warming on Other Planets

If the Sun is the primary driver of climate change, one should expect to see evidence of recent warming on other planets. As the Earth has warmed over the last 100 years, so too has Jupiter, Neptune, Mars and Pluto.

Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system. Its most distinctive feature is the great Red Spot, which is a huge storm that has been raging for over 300 years. A new storm, called Red Spot Jr. has recently formed from the merger of three oval-shaped storms between 1998 and 2000. The latest images from the Hubble Space Telescope suggests that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe. The new storm has been rising in altitude above the surrounding clouds, which signals a temperature increase. - Source, and more detailed info on Neptune, Mars, and Pluto

¹Petroleum used in petrochemicals would be an entirely different matter.

I never knew there was a Global Warming/ Global Cooling thread on here. My Life is complete.

Simple, The Suns Solar Maximum/minimum toys with the Earths Thermostat. Its only Logical to assume the Earths temperature is affected by the thing that gives us our temperature.... Yeah... The Sun. In any case, I did enjoy reading these pages

So in the twenty first century man can detect a global change in co2 and tempreture. The scale of the change is meaningless. The detected change coincides in time with industrial fossil co2 use and industrial farming. So they call up the cum hoc ergo proptor hoc fallacy. With this therfore because of this.

There is, or was, a chart online from the USGS showing the highs and low co2 and temps of the last 600,000 years in 100 year intervals. You could transpose the "spike" in the chart on the first page of this thread to anywhere on that chart and not even be able to find it. There have been literally tens of thousands of such "spikes" in the ice core record.

The second chart, the one with the regular up and down averages over the last 600,000 years, Those up and downs occur at the same frequency as the solar system spirals polarly around in our arm of the galaxy up and down through the equatorial plane of the galactic disk. Cum hoc ergo proptor hoc? Not at all. When two things happen many times at the same time every time thats called repeatability and is the foundation of science. The warmists say the one detectable co2 spike coinciding with industry is conclusive evidence of AGW but the repeating coincidence of the solar system through the galactic plane is cum hoc ergo proptor hoc. They completely reverse the scientific method.

But coincidence is not mechanism. The galactic plane is very thin. 1000 light years thick in these parts. That's around 2/3 of 1% of the diameter of the disk. The matter of the disk is not uniformly distributed in that thin 1000 light year thick plane. It's densest in the equatorial plane and thin to near non existance at the top and bottom of the 1000 light year thickness. So we regularly pass through a dense plane of dust, rock and gas of all sorts of minerals, elements and gases and at the same time our co2 and tempreture and the tempreture of the rest of the planets rises and falls. Notice how the shape of the rises and falls in that graph kind of resemble each other in shape? We call that a signature. It's a signature that not only is the regular rise and fall not coincidental in timing but also is evidence that the cause of a rise and fall is from the same cause as the other rises and falls.

While you can get a dog to jump by either poking him with a stick or squirting him with a squirtgun, and the "jump signatures" can resemble each other, if you keep poking him with a stick and he keeps jumping then you can be pretty sure in concluding that he's jumping because you are poking him with a stick.

Makes me wonder if there are layers in moon core samples showing changes in dust deposition in the same tempo and maybe changes in solar activity in the same tempo.

There's another thing about the signature of that graph. The sharp rise at the beginning of the rise and the gentler slope as it falls off is consistant with a sudden passage through somthing and then a slow disipation of the somthing.

Like when you get into water your wetness rises sharply but when you leave the water you bring some water with you that dries slowly. This is consistant with penetrating a layer of dust in the galactic equatorial plane and bringing some of the dust with us which disipates when we pass out of it.

Regarding the sea level rise predicted by the warmists.

So where is the evidence in the geologic record of past sea level rise and fall due to the past regular rises and falls of co2 and tempreture shown by the ice core samples? If it happened there would be a record in the rocks.

Regarding global increase in weather turbulence such as drought and storm as purported by the warmists. There would be records of that too in fossil records.

In fact many of the disasterous predictions of the warmists should have happened before and left regular records in the geology from past periods of co2 and tempreture rise and fall.

"Global warming" is a few pieces of information used to support speculation, fabrication and fear mongering rather than as pointers to real scientific evidence.

But that's a good thing for real scientists because all the well funded warmists are looking in the wrong places and leaving the field unexplored. There are some real gems of hard science to be found.

Aside from the fact you have "123 posts" which blew my mind, I couldn't have said it any better.

Originally Posted by Schmidty226

Aside from the fact you have "123 posts" which blew my mind, I couldn't have said it any better.

Not any more ha ha ha. But I guess that means that real science can be as simple as 123.

The Vail sea-level curve was produced from proprietary, and undisclosed, petroleum industry data. The Haq curve is a more recent one.

Sea-level curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia