Originally posted by Eladar…How long is the short term?
[b]Because, in the short term, natural fluctuations in global temperatures will dwarf the long-term warming trend.
How long is the short term?
Why is it that the few years of warming is not considered a "short term" natural fluctuation?[/b]
…
I would guess very roughly less than about 30 years but it would be sometimes much much more than that or much much less than that depending on how severe the current short-term fluctuation is and how long it lasts.
…Why is it that the few years of warming is not considered a "short term" natural fluctuation?...…
Just a few years of warming might be considered to be part of a "short term" natural fluctuation -I would not say it couldn’t be.
I would guess very roughly less than about 30 years but it would be sometimes much much more than that or much much less than that depending on how severe the current short-term fluctuation is and how long it lasts.
In other words, you have no clue how long a short term trend lasts. Could be 30 years. It could be much shorter, it could be much longer.
Just a few years of warming might be considered to be part of a "short term" natural fluctuation -I would not say it couldn’t be.
Then why is global warming man made? How much of it is man made? How much is natural fluctation? How much of it is certain people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill? Those who stand to make money on global warming are the very people who are warning us about it.
Just look at the example you commented on. Northern Europe would experience a mini ice age and the rest of the world would experience ever increasing temps. That seems a bit alarmist to me, especially since the whole world is experiencing ever lowering temps for the past year and a half.
Originally posted by Eladar…In other words, you have no clue how long a short term trend lasts.…
[b]I would guess very roughly less than about 30 years but it would be sometimes much much more than that or much much less than that depending on how severe the current short-term fluctuation is and how long it lasts.
In other words, you have no clue how long a short term trend lasts. Could be 30 years. It could be much shorter, it could be much cially since the whole world is experiencing ever lowering temps for the past year and a half.[/b]
“short term” has no precise defined length in this context for the reason I just given.
…Could be 30 years. It could be much shorter, it could be much longer. ..…
Depending on the current fluctuations, yes -that is just what I just said -so what is your point?
…Then why is global warming man made? . ..…
Are your referring to global warming as a result of short term natural fluctuations or the longer term warming that is a result of man’s CO2 emissions?
….How much of it is man made? How much is natural fluctuation?. …
Over what time period? +only estimates can be given using computer simulations.
….How much of it is certain people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill? …
Lets suppose everybody is trying to “make a mountain out of a mole hill”; the question should then be: how big and dangerous is that mole hill?
…Those who stand to make money on global warming are the very people who are warning us about it.…
That is generally true (I think) -but that doesn’t mean they are lying (if that is what you are implying).
You can only rationally judge the credibility of a hypothesis by reason and the evidence and NOT by the motives of people that promote it. If somebody promoted a hypothesis out of pure selfish greed, why would that make that hypothesis necessarily incorrect?
-as long as it is backed up by credible reason and evidence, it would have a fair chance of being correct no matter how dubious the motives are for its promotion.
….Just look at the example you commented on. Northern Europe would experience a mini ice age and the rest of the world would experience ever increasing temps. That seems a bit alarmist to me, …
If it is the truth, then it being “alarmist” would not change that fact.
Depending on the current fluctuations, yes -that is just what I just said -so what is your point?
I thought my point was clear. For global warming alarmists, any cooling period will be a short term fluctuation, while any warming period will be the result man produced CO2 gasses.
What does “’” mean? -I didn’t say this.
The comment was meant to be in respect to the general context of the thread. Nice to know that there are at least some people who aren't buying the hype hook, line and sinker.
Are your referring to global warming as a result of short term natural fluctuations or the longer term warming that is a result of man’s CO2 emissions?
What period od time is the long term warming due to man's CO2 emmissions? I thought you said that any warming period could be natural warming, now you claim that there is a long term warming due to man's CO2. Make up your mind.
Over what time period? +only estimates can be given using computer simulations.
I'd like to see the global warming computer model that predicted the last yaer and a half. When the models predict warming trends and it warms, then it is global warming due to man's CO2. When the models are incorrect, the assumptions built into the models are still considered sacred by the alarmists, but the fact that they are wrong is simply written off as a natural cooling trend.
That's about the long and the short of it from my perspective. I view the global warming people such as yourself to be hypocrites based on the fact that you are so flippant about evidence that is in opposition to your beliefs. Yet you still claim to be using science to support your beliefs.
Originally posted by Eladar…I thought my point was clear. For global warming alarmists, any cooling period will be a short term fluctuation, while any warming period will be the result man produced CO2 gasses.
[b]Depending on the current fluctuations, yes -that is just what I just said -so what is your point?
I thought my point was clear. For global warming alarmists, any cooling period will be a short term fluctuation, while any warming period will be the result man produced CO2 gasses.
What does “’” mean? -I didn’t say this.
The comme osition to your beliefs. Yet you still claim to be using science to support your beliefs.[/b]
.…
Not according to me -and I see no premise for the belief that most other people are irrational enough to beg to differ.
…What period of time is the long term warming due to man's CO2 emissions?
..…
That is not precisely defined -it would all depend on how the short term natural fluctuations swamp it in the short term.
…I thought you said that any warming period could be natural warming,. ….
Theoretically, that is correct.
…now you claim that there is a long term warming due to man's CO2. Make up your mind. ..…
How does one logically contradict the other?
….I'd like to see the global warming computer model that predicted the last year and a half.…
The computer simulations actually predict short term natural fluctuations where the temperature can take a temporary nose-dive for a few years -there is no significant inconsistency that I am aware of between the best simulations to date and observed reality.
….I view the global warming people such as yourself to be hypocrites based on the fact that you are so flippant about evidence that is in opposition to your beliefs. .…
Exactly what bits of evidence are your referring to that is “in opposition” to my beliefs?
Are you referring to the temporary global cooling? -if so, this is not “in opposition” to my belief that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect because we would expect such fluctuations regardless of whether or not the greenhouse theory is correct.
Originally posted by EladarAre you implying that no such computer simulations exist?
Exactly which computer model are you talking about? Or are you just making up crap?
-if so, scroll two-thirds down at:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm
I can give better examples/links if you press me.
I know the computer models exist. I just don't think any of them predicted the global cooling we are having today. As far as I know, according to all of the computer models from the early 1990's, we should be heating up.
Here's an interesting read. It predicts that we are headed into a 30 year cooling cycle:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
Originally posted by Eladar…I know the computer models exist. I just don't think any of them predicted the global cooling we are having today.
I know the computer models exist. I just don't think any of them predicted the global cooling we are having today. As far as I know, according to all of the computer models from the early 1990's, we should be heating up.
Here's an interesting read. It predicts that we are headed into a 30 year cooling cycle:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
.…
How would you know?
What is the premise for your belief that non of them predicted the temporarily global cooling we are having in the last year and a half?
There are bound to be a few of the many computer simulations that predicted this cooling because most predict such short-term fluctuations in temperature. -many would have failed to predict this particular cooling because our climate is, in physical reality, a “chaotic system” (i.e. the tiniest difference in the starting condition would result in a totally different outcome -I studied this at university along with computer programming) but virtually all predict this kind of temperature fluctuation and virtually all predict a long term warming trend over ~50 or more.
…Here's an interesting read. It predicts that we are headed into a 30 year cooling cycle:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
..…
Yes -I am aware that there are various natural warming and cooling cycles -and some of them stretch over thousands of years.
Basic science tells us that adding extra CO2 into the atmosphere will make the climate warmer than it would have otherwise been given whatever cycles are occurring at the time. So if there would have been a temporary drop in temperature by, say, 0.2 degrees if no extra CO2 was put in the atmosphere, then the actual temporary drop in temperature may be, say, 0.1 degrees as the result of the extra CO2 that was put in the atmosphere. -and then the next time the temperature rises again, it would probably rise by a slightly greater amount that it would have done if no extra CO2 was put in the atmosphere.
Originally posted by EladarThere is definite correlation between the Start of Slash and burn farming and changes in our natural carbon cycle levels, this comes from from Ice cores, and various spikes can be seen at various other landmarks in human history such as the Industrial revolution etc. This is a proven correlation, there is no two ways about it, I wish I could give you a paper to read, but I'm not a student any more and don't have my ingenta connect account. Furthermore there is a Direct proven relationship between atmospheric carbon levels and climate, thus there is a definite if slightly indirect relationship between us and climate change.
[/b]
Then why is global warming man made? How much of it is man made? How much is natural fluctation? How much of it is certain people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill? Those who stand to make money on global warming are the very people who are warning us about it.
Just look at the example you commented on. Northern Europe would experience ...[text shortened]... pecially since the whole world is experiencing ever lowering temps for the past year and a half.[/b]
There is massive confusion in general about the Ice age cycle, and the shorter scale cycles in the earths history. I wrote a 30'000 word essay on this if your really interested.
However Ill have to dig that up.
Here's what's generally meant by short term....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles,
Anything shorter than this is generally irrelevant in terms of the 4.5 Ba age of the earth.
In terms of longer term cycles (we've had four I believe) we are still in an "Ice Age" as such.... Because there have been periods of the earths history where the Ice caps are non exsistant.
The people who like to deny anthropogenic climate change generally use the confusion (generally their own) between the long and short term cycles to justify their lazyness toward recycling and switching off lights more than anything else.
The true question isn't whether or not we're affecting the climate..... We are.
Its What exactly we're doing that's the question.
And whatever we are dong everyone should still recycle and turn off lights etc. because we currently have distinctly finite resources and wasting them really isn't such a great Idea..... that or go nuclear and leave your lights on all you want.....
Furthermore there is a Direct proven relationship between atmospheric carbon levels and climate, thus there is a definite if slightly indirect relationship between us and climate change.
I do not deny any of that. My question is how much of an effect? Clearly the increase in temp of 1 F per year just isn't happening.
The global warming hype happened at the end of a natural heating cylcle. The temperatures were getting warmer and no one was willing to mention the fact that we were in a warming cycle. Only when it starts to cool does the "this is just a cycle" thing gets mentioned.
Originally posted by Eladar…I do not deny any of that. My question is how much of an effect?.…
[b]Furthermore there is a Direct proven relationship between atmospheric carbon levels and climate, thus there is a definite if slightly indirect relationship between us and climate change.
I do not deny any of that. My question is how much of an effect? Clearly the increase in temp of 1 F per year just isn't happening.
The global warming hype ha ...[text shortened]... ing cycle. Only when it starts to cool does the "this is just a cycle" thing gets mentioned.[/b]
I don’t know what the latest best official estimate of “how much” is but does it matter? -the fact remains that the estimates are that it is going to be enough to cause significant problems such as rising sea levels etc.
…Clearly the increase in temp of 1 F per year just isn't happening. ..…
Who said that it would? -That is not what the greenhouse theory predicts.
I don’t know what the latest best official estimate of “how much” is but does it matter? -the fact remains that the estimates are that it is going to be enough to cause significant problems such as rising sea levels etc.
If it isn't significant, then it isn't the CO2 causing the rising sea levels, it is the natural cycle.
Who said that it would? -That is not what the greenhouse theory predicts.
From the link I gave above
Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 (Fig. 1), which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.
Sorry, it was 1 F per decade. Even that isn't happening. The source of that prediction is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change. It was based on computer models.
Originally posted by EladarWhat criteria would you need to have met in order to believe that humankind,
We'll just have to see how things turn out. Only time will tell if the earth will continue to heat up or if the temps will continue to fluctuate.
through its pollution, is contributing significantly to global climate change
(not solely responsible for it, of course)?
Nemesio