It's good that we agree on something. It should be noted, however, that there has been a flat line in global temperature for the last 10 or so years. While this is insignificant as an indicator of anything, it should be noted that the models that are used for all projections failed to predict this.
Careful... that line worked in 2008, but not in 2010. 1998 is a useful year for selection bias.
Following the release of global temperature data which revealed April of 2010 was the hottest April ever and that this year so far has been warmest on record, Nasa has said global temperatures have been steadily rising since the late 1970s with no significant let-up in the trend.
Interesting. Looking at the Nasa GISS temperature graphs, they seem to disagree with themselves, see here. Your point about selection bias is correct, but I was not claiming that global warming has stopped, I was claiming that the models used for all kinds of funky predictions about the future temperatures failed to predict the 10-year flatline(what happens next is anyone's guess). I should probably also point out that choosing the year 1880 can also be seen as selection bias, since the Little Ice Age ended right about then, so increasing temperatures is only natural after an extended cooling like that. Without context, graphs beginning at 1880 also provide a nice upward slope all the way to the present, save for the "small" dive at around 1950.
I also think it's curious that you choose to use an article in the Times of India as proof, instead of pointing to the data that they draw their conclusions from. Climate science is so politicized that everything on the Internet having to do with it should be taken with a truckload of salt, whether it agrees with your position or not.
I'm sorry, what? I'd like to know how you link a few years of poor oyster harvesting to global warming, so please quote some kind of source.
Using google is really not that difficult. (Further down the article downplays the link, but that's business press for you.)
Young oysters seem to be dying in their swimming larval stage because the slightly acidic seawater is dissolving their shells from the outside faster than they can grow, Kaufman said. The breeding cycle has failed for each of the past four years, he said.
Using google runs into the problem I outlined above. Using google to find a business journal article that suggests ocean acidification as a reason for poor harvest of oysters, even if "some scientists" think so, is anecdotal and not evidence of anything. As the guy later on in that article says, the problem is not unprecedented and is likely caused by entirely natural factors.
Same goes for the coral statement. Ocean acidification is a scary-sounding theory, but whether it will have any major ill-effects is pretty much an open question.
Research has already found that corals, coccolithophore algae, coralline algae, foraminifera, shellfish and pteropods experience reduced calcification or enhanced dissolution when exposed to elevated CO2.
Uh-huh. I also experience increased perspiration when subjected to higher temperatures. I should also point out that using wikipedia as a source in any highly political issue is pretty futile, since one side will always highjack any articles having to do with it, even if attempts are made to avoid it. The wikipedia article also seems to suggest that so far the pH has not decreased by more than 0.1, which is pretty negligible. Different parts of the ocean also have different pH values, and there may be as much as 0.5 of difference. I also understand the "but if you decrease pH by 0.1, then the overall range decreases by 0.1!" argument. This simply means that any species that can't adapt may die out(if a change that small even necessitates adaptation), but they will be replaced by species that can live in that environment. Why this is considered to be catastrophic or even bad I do not understand.
Heat waves are weather and are caused by natural variability. Same goes for blizzards, neither is proof of anything.
When the variability starts marching away from known records, then the climate is changing beyond it's known natural cycles. El Nino weather patterns and other variables of course come into play, but hey, you got to pretend you were thinking for a second.
The Medieval Warm Period was likely at least as warm as the global temperature is presently. I'd also like to make another reference to the Little Ice Age above, I bet people living in 1850s were pretty scared considering that the world had been quite a lot warmer for several centuries before that. Therefore your argument about "known records" is pretty silly. Of course it's worth it to raise an eyebrow if it seems that the climate is going beyond its previous known maximum variability, but going for the kind of catastrophic scenarios as you did is not yet warranted and amounts to little else than scare tactics.
As far as your claim about the Arctic, I believe the scariest guess so far has been ice-free by 2015. All of those "predictions"(guesses) are based on models that ignore significant aspects of the inner workings of Earth's climate, most notably changes in cloud cover.
The Northwest Passage has been navigable for the first time in history for two years in a row. The US military is already reorganizing itself to defend it as a new attack vector. Russia, Canada, and the US are already squabbling over the resources under the ice.
"For the first time in history" sounds impressive, but I assume by that you mean the last 100-200 years, since it was just as navigable during the Medieval Warm Period. I'd also like to point you to the excellent sea ice page at Watts Up With That: http://wattsupwiththat.com/sea-ice-page/. Before you go "skeptic heretic DENIER website", please look over the sources at the bottom of the page and criticize those, since that is where the data for the page comes from. The page contains figures for both the arctic as well as antarctic.
I'd also like to point out that any kind of catastrophic global warming that CO2 might cause requires some kind of significant positive feedback mechanism, but none have been identified as of yet. It has simply been assumed that there must be one without any speculation as to what that might be. Cloud cover for example is likely a significant negative feedback when temperatures get higher.
In this case, you're entirely full of shit.
Ice-core records show that climate changes in the past have been large, rapid, and synchronous over broad areas extending into low latitudes, with less variability over historical times. These ice-core records come from high mountain glaciers and the polar regions, including small ice caps and the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.
As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades. Such abrupt changes have been absent during the few key millennia when agriculture and industry have arisen. The speed, size, and extent of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal of climate stability. Records of these changes are especially clear in high-resolution ice cores. Ice cores can preserve histories of local climate (snowfall, temperature), regional (wind-blown dust, sea salt, etc.), and broader (trace gases in the air) conditions, on a common time scale, demonstrating synchrony of climate changes over broad regions.
That paper does not address my point at all. I said that CO2 alone can't warm the planet to the catastrophic levels predicted by IPCC among others(and noone claims it can), there has to be some kind of positive feedback mechanism to achieve that. I don't even understand what point you're trying to get across with that paper, could you please explain?
I believe the argument used is "we can't make the models fit the historical temperatures without including warming caused by CO2". Another argument I've heard, although not in quite these words, is "I can't think of anything else to explain it and CO2 seems to correlate pretty well". The latter is simply silly and the models in the former do not model cloud cover at all because it is unpredictable by models. Best models are at least 10% off on average, while a 2% change in cloud cover could account for the entire warming witnessed in the last century. Go figure.
CO2 can be measured. Here are the broad results:
Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2008, 8.67 gigatonnes of carbon (31.8 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels worldwide, compared to 6.14 gigatonnes in 1990. In addition, land use change contributed 1.20 gigatonnes in 2008, compared to 1.64 gigatonnes in 1990.
This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2008, its concentration is 38% above pre-industrial levels.
Also, your cloud cover bullshit is bullshit.
But a new study published in the July 24 issue of Science is clearing the haze. A group of researchers from the University of Miami and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography studied cloud data of the northeast Pacific Ocean — both from satellites and from the human eye — over the past 50 years and combined that with climate models. They found that low-level clouds tend to dissipate as the ocean warms — which means a warmer world could well have less cloud cover. "That would create positive feedback, a reinforcing cycle that continues to warm the climate," says Amy Clement, a climate scientist at the University of Miami and the lead author of the Science study.
Do you even read my comments at all? I was making a reference to cloud cover, not CO2. I am well aware that Mauna Loa is pretty well sited and its observations on CO2 concentrations can be considered to be accurate. As for the latter part, again you are quoting the text from the Time magazine instead of the actual source, but I found a summary at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/325/5939/376. Let me quote the first line for you: "The first reliable analysis of cloud behavior over past decades suggests—but falls short of proving—that clouds are strongly amplifying global warming." There's also a press release at http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/pressreleases/20090723-clouds.html. Since I can't read the original study, I can't comment on its validity, but based on the summary and press release I'd like to know if the study indicates that it is indeed warmer ocean that causes less cloud cover, and not the other way around (age-old question of causality). Another issue I would like to point out is that the area used for the study is very small on a planetary scale, and would like to see what references the study makes to that point (can you draw conclusions on the entire climate based on so small a sample etc.).
CO2 is not dirty, CO2 is plant food.
Water is essential to human life, but if you drink too much H2O, it will change the chemistry of your body and kill you. Similarly, if you change the atmosphere to the point where the chemistry of air changes, or cause a drastic shift in temperatures due to a higher stable global temperature, you're going to kill important things, like the Amazon rain forest.
"Chemistry of air" sounds pretty scary, but carbon dioxide needs to get to around 1% concentration of air before it starts having an effect on humans, which is about 25 times the current concentration. It's pretty safe to say that it will never have any significant physiological effects. You're confusing CO2-induced warming and CO2-induced health effects in that argument. As for the rain forest argument, I recommend reading up on it since that particular claim (even minor temperature rise can wreak havoc in Amazon rain forests) has been classified as extreme alarmism by pretty much everyone.
It's also funny how your argument pretty much degenerated into an ad hominem and failed to respond to the question.
Your arguments are flawed because they are flawed. The fact that I think that you and the other guy are dumb for having those arguments isn't ad hominem, nor is my desire to make you financially liable for your decisions. Your mental capacity to understand climate science is a perfectly valid reason to convince other people not to pay attention to your opinion.
You're quoting articles in tabloids as proof and call my understanding deficient. Do I even need to make fun of this?
In fact it might be better due to more farm land, higher CO2 levels promoting plant growth and less harsh winters. More people die when it is cold than when it is warm.
CO2 levels have been rising since the industrial revolution, but the plants aren't growing any more quickly. And Global Warming doesn't mean the summers get hot and the winter gets mild. It means the global mean temperature is higher, which can mean more blizzards, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more heat waves -- in short, more unpredictability. The earth's atmosphere is ultimately a closed system. The more heat you introduce, the more activity you are going to get. This may lead, way down the line, to another shift in equilibrium that ushers in a new ice age. Unfortunately, a higher global mean temperature also means less glaciers, which makes the water supply vastly more dependent on rain, subjecting more regions to drought, famine, and a host of other problems. It also reduces the regular amount of ice and snow coverage, which keep the planet cooler by reflecting sunlight.
And if you think temperature related deaths are higher in Siberia in winter than heat waves in Europe in the summer, you've got a data set that I have never seen. What's far more important to human survival is regular access to clean water. I'd wager more people die, by far, from diarrhea and sanitation issues than die from anything purely related to weather.
I guess the reason CO2 concentrations in greenhouses can be(and are) in excess of 1000 ppm is to get rid of the human pests then, or what? I recommend watching this youtube video (with a healthy amount of skepticism since it is youtube, after all). Granted, it's a single species of plant but it demonstrates that CO2 can have a drastic effect on growth. As far as glaciers disappearing due to hotter climate, hotter air means more moisture in the air, which means more rain. Many areas can actually benefit from hotter temperatures in terms of water availability, but whether it's overall a negative or positive effect is not known.
As for a data set, how about UK?. WUWT also has an article on this, but based on your argumentation I do not think you're going to read it. Nevertheless, here's a link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the-winter-months/. There's also a saying I heard somewhere: "Lack of food kills you in weeks, lack of water kills you in days, but lack of warmth can kill you in hours."
This entire green thing resembles a religion...
Philip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." The reality is that CO2 levels have been rising for nearly 200 years, and now are passing known recorded amounts in the last 10,000. Some of it is being absorbed by the ocean, but that's incåreasing the pH level through chemical interactions with the sea floor, which also seems to have adverse side effects on marine life throughout the entire food chain. Glaciers are measurably shrinking. The Northwest passage has opened up for the first time in history for two years in a row. 2010 is the hottest year on record, so far. In the last two decades, half of those years at the hottest on record so far.
Let me put it like this. If I actually saw Jesus Christ, shook his hand, and had him change my cup of water into a nice port, climate change would be like a religion, since religion would be then be reality.
As it stands currently, you're denying science because you don't like the conclusions. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that sounds more like a religion.
I agree that CO2 is rising as per the data provided by Mauna Loa mesurements. I also agree that the temperature has risen clearly ever since 1880 up until 1998. What I do not agree on is that the current warming trend can be fully(or even mostly) attributed to CO2, I do not agree that the models that do not even model cloud cover can be used to predict temperatures decades into the future, nor do I agree that the current warming trend will result in catastrophic warming. What I most of all do not agree on is spending billions or trillions of $CURRENCY€ to combat a supposed "problem" that may not even be a problem when the money could be spent on far more important things.