'Why do we need to march for climate change?'

Post Reply New Topic

It's arbitrary.


Sure.



You can clearly see the cooling trend above, starting in 1998.

30 years is less arbitrary than "whenever happens to appear to suit the claim I am making". Chose any start date other than "late 1998" and your claim crumbles.

And no, it isn't "clear" at all. Aside from months and years, the table you posted gives absolutely no indication what the numbers mean. No statistical analysis is provided, either.

Perhaps you might wish to re-examine my first reply to you? It is not good science to compare El Nino with La Nina.

The MWP was slightly warmer according to some temperature reconstructions, and things are really starting to get interesting over geological time scales.


This.



A cooling trend since 1998. 16 years with global cooling.

What I see is that 1998 was a exceptionally warm year; the tempearture of only one year is not enough to determine a climate trend. But if you make a graph of the temperatures over decades and even centuries, then clearly there is a climate warming trend.

True, and that's why the following 16 years are important.


Happens all the time, in cycles. Ice age. Warm period. Ice age. Warm period. Etc.




No cyclical activity on a geological time scale, though.

Last edited by Humanaut on 01 Oct 2014, 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

We should all be marching for change, period. Demand more responsibility from corporations and quit buckling to their tantrums. Anyone who says a corporation doesn't have responsibility to society and the environment is a nitwit and should be shipped to Pluto.

Your analysis is not what the graph shows. The line of best fit is even included for your convenience.

Also, this shouldn't come as a surprise to you, but climate scientists are aware of long term cycles. The current warming is in spite of low solar activity, and temperature changes are usually caused by some change to radiative forcing.

We know radiative forcing is a thing. We know radiative forcing is the only reason this planet is habitable. We know we are increasing radiative forcing. If that is true, we should expect temperature to be rising. Temperature has risen since we started burning fossil fuels, even once you control for other factors. Bingo, good science, our burning of fossil fuels is increasing the global average temperature as well as other more relevant temperatures.

Bad science: deciding that you think this whole global warming thing is a load of rubbish, and then looking for the data that supports you view, and not criticising that data despite its obvious flaws. That's something known as "bias".

Bibliography:
Solar activity is currently low, but that won't affect AGW in a meaningful way: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11 ... %E2%80%9D/
The factors affecting global mean temperature change: http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/244005 ... 00x717.jpg
A beginner's guide to climate change (n.b. this is an educational resource produced by an energy company. The facts are accurate and scientific sources can be obtained easily, but I feel this might help explain things better than some jargon-heavy scientific papers, as clearly RealClimate is not suitable for this audience): http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/mediablob/en ... s/blob.pdf

I've not done an analysis. I have merely pointed out the fact that the planet has been cooling since 1998. It remains to be seen if 1998 represents the peak before we again enter a new ice age. If the previous peak is an indication we should expect a further increase of ~2°C, which would be a good thing. I'm not overly optimistic, though.

That's an attempt at an analysis... and it's also not a fact.


By what standard would a temperature rise of 2 degrees be a good thing?

It's plainly obvious, both from anecdotal and objective standpoints, that the earth is getting warmer.

It's even more obvious in Arctic regions.

Does anyone here even know what "global warming" means ? Where do they measure? Is it fixed every year ? Do they use averages or medians ?
I live in northern USA and we had probably the coldest year in my life time.

The NOAA says 2014 is the coldest year in North America since 1993.
http://www.weather.com/news/science/env ... a-20140715

So, apparently, somewhere else in the world must be heating up exceptionally for the overall average to go up ? Unless they use some statistical gimmicks?

It's a fact.


It would make economic exploitation of certain areas possible. Oil drilling in the Arctic is one example, but things doesn't look good at the moment due to global cooling.

http://iceagenow.info/2014/10/arctics-c ... d-6-years/

So, the 30 year trend is arbitrary, but the 16 year trend is important... Care to explain why?

It represents a shift from warming to cooling.

If you look at the graph, there are lots of shifts from warming to cooling and also from cooling to warming. That is why we use moving averages and best fit lines and other forms of statistical analyses (such as comparing the number of record highs to record lows as we move from day to day) in order to understand the long-term trend.

16 years of global cooling. The models didn't predict it. Quite the contrary, actually. The CO2 hypothesis is crumbling like a biscuit.