AGW Supporters always ignore this question

[seedload]

I bring this up all the time and never get a response to this point from an AGW supporter.



Why are the reds the same and the blues the same despite CO2 level being so different? Any AGW proponents willing to take this one on?

[KitemanSA]

I am not an AGW supporter, I am unconvinced byeither the supporters or the detractors, but if I were a supporter I would tout that chart as evidence that it exists.

The "reds" and "blues" are NOT the same. the second blue is hotter than the first, the second red is hotter than the first. This suggests a long period oscillation around a rising trend.

You nudge me in the pro AGW direction with this.

Thing is, with a longer baseline, this is just the recuperation side of a big dip.

[seedload]

The "reds" and "blues" are NOT the same. the second blue is hotter than the first, the second red is hotter than the first. This suggests a long period oscillation around a rising trend.

Exactly - a long period oscillation around a rising trend.

... and the trend starts before CO2 is a "problem". The trend is the same after CO2 becomes a "problem". The trend, around which temperature is oscillating, is not different before or after CO2.

[bcglorf]

What is being graphed by the reds and blues?

[seedload]

What is being graphed by the reds and blues?

It is all the same thing. 128 years worth of temperature (GISS), broken equally into four segments of 32 years each.

I also show fitted lines for each 32 year segment. The fitting is Local Polynomial Regression Fitting (R loess function).

Period 1 1880-1912 - slight cooling
Period 2 1912-1944 - warming
Period 3 1944-1976 - slight cooling
Period 4 1976-2008 - warming

The trend of period 1 is similar to the trend of period 3
The trend of period 2 is similar to the trend of period 4

But CO2 is MUCH higher in the later periods. Why are the trends the same?

[bcglorf]

What is being graphed by the reds and blues?

It is all the same thing. 128 years worth of temperature (GISS), broken equally into four segments of 32 years each.

I also show fitted lines for each 32 year segment. The fitting is Local Polynomial Regression Fitting (R loess function).

Period 1 1880-1912 - slight cooling
Period 2 1912-1944 - warming
Period 3 1944-1976 - slight cooling
Period 4 1976-2008 - warming

The trend of period 1 is similar to the trend of period 3
The trend of period 2 is similar to the trend of period 4

But CO2 is MUCH higher in the later periods. Why are the trends the same?

I'm strongly of the opinion that catastrophic unprecedented AGW is not only unproven, but is in fact contrary to the evidence.

That said, your graph is not at odds with either interpretation. If CO2 is causing as much warming as the alarmists claim, the shape of temperature trends should only be expected to be shifting upwards over time, but still following natural variation due to all other factors as it always has. They in fact point to your graph as proof that natural factors have remained constant(similar trends), but CO2 forcing has moved the base temp up over time.

I'd say it proves nothing except that there's been a moderate overall warming over the last 1k years. It says precisely nothing about human CO2 emission's relationship with that increase.

[clonan]

But CO2 is MUCH higher in the later periods. Why are the trends the same?

Are the trends the same?

I notice that the first blue "Cooling" phase dropped the temperature by almost 0.3 degrees while the second one is less than 0.05 degrees or esentially stagnant.

Then I noticed that the first heating period goes up 0.5 degrees while the second one goes up 0.7 degrees or almost 50% faster.

Now what would be MORE telling is to also graph CO2 levels on the same graph.

MY read of this graph could indicate that industrial progress triggered a warming trend in 1920 right after WWI which lasted through WWII. Then the post war recession, reconstruction and oil shocks reduced emissions till about 1980 at which time emissions skyrocketed.


Now personally, I lean towards AGW but I don't think it is exclusivly man. However I DO think there is no reason NOT to reduce emissions. The argument that it will hurt the economy is stupid. Changing energy sources will hurt some and help others just like any other technological advancement. Plus if we don't do anything and it turns out AGW is right completly then the economy WILL be hurt.

[seedload]

Are the trends the same?

I notice that the first blue "Cooling" phase dropped the temperature by almost 0.3 degrees while the second one is less than 0.05 degrees or esentially stagnant.

Then I noticed that the first heating period goes up 0.5 degrees while the second one goes up 0.7 degrees or almost 50% faster.

Well, you seem to use the fitted line for your first assessment and the actual temperature for the second. Not really fair. If you use fitted for both, you get 0.3 degrees of difference between period 1 and 3 and 0 degrees of difference between period 2 and 4. I would be curious why the second grouping shows no difference in trends while the first grouping does, since, again, the CO2 difference is much greater. Maybe the little difference you see is noise or error or... who knows. Maybe the CO2 signal is in there. If it is, it is small compared to the overall dominant trend.

Now what would be MORE telling is to also graph CO2 levels on the same graph.

MY read of this graph could indicate that industrial progress triggered a warming trend in 1920 right after WWI which lasted through WWII. Then the post war recession, reconstruction and oil shocks reduced emissions till about 1980 at which time emissions skyrocketed.
.

NO, CO2 levels have gone up the whole time. Ever increasingly so.

Now personally, I lean towards AGW but I don't think it is exclusivly man.

That was funny. See if you can figure out why.

However I DO think there is no reason NOT to reduce emissions. The argument that it will hurt the economy is stupid. Changing energy sources will hurt some and help others just like any other technological advancement. Plus if we don't do anything and it turns out AGW is right completly then the economy WILL be hurt.

The argument is stupid? Seriously. STUPID? Man, you are nieve and your economic explanations above are not correct in any regard. Changing energy sources does not hurt some/help some. Changing energy sources is wasted production that doesn't produce other stuff. So, expending energy to do something that is not needed decreases the making of stuff (GDP). And, since the new "energy" is more expensive, it now costs more to make the stuff that we do make. Since stuff costs more, everyone gets hurt.

[Tom Ligon]

I've always wondered if the inflection in the early 80's were not caused by a push to reduce pollution.

One phenomenon that has come to light in the last few years is that the Chinese are effectively seeding clouds in that part of the world percisely because they are burning coal. They are producing sulfate aerosols, too. The clouds are thick enough to reflect sunlight, and have a net cooling effect.

Cloud cover cannot be neglected in climate effects. Cleaning up the air almost certainly reduces cloud cover.

[djolds1]

Cloud cover cannot be neglected in climate effects. Cleaning up the air almost certainly reduces cloud cover.

Global Dimming and the 912 experiment. Virtually no aircraft in the skies over North America on September 12th, 2001, and Global Dimming in the region went down. Definite high altitude aerosol effects.

[seedload]

I notice that the first blue "Cooling" phase dropped the temperature by almost 0.3 degrees while the second one is less than 0.05 degrees or esentially stagnant.

BTW, To help your arguement, I think this picture is more illustrative of what you are talking about. Same thing, only the trends are shows for the first two periods together and the second two periods together. Might help.



The second two periods have a slightly different fitted shape and a different overall delta to the fitted trend of a little more than 0.25 degrees C. Personally, I think that difference may be the CO2 signal or it may be just some randomness. Whatever it is, it is much smaller than what we are all supposed to be worried about.

[Diogenes]

I've always wondered if the inflection in the early 80's were not caused by a push to reduce pollution.

One phenomenon that has come to light in the last few years is that the Chinese are effectively seeding clouds in that part of the world percisely because they are burning coal. They are producing sulfate aerosols, too. The clouds are thick enough to reflect sunlight, and have a net cooling effect.

Cloud cover cannot be neglected in climate effects. Cleaning up the air almost certainly reduces cloud cover.

Water vapor, Water Vapor, Water Vapor IS a negative feedback effect. If it were not, we wouldn't exist. Since it is, nothing else matters because it is by far, the dominant effect.

[clonan]

Well, you seem to use the fitted line for your first assessment and the actual temperature for the second. Not really fair. If you use fitted for both, you get 0.3 degrees of difference between period 1 and 3 and 0 degrees of difference between period 2 and 4. I would be curious why the second grouping shows no difference in trends while the first grouping does, since, again, the CO2 difference is much greater. Maybe the little difference you see is noise or error or... who knows. Maybe the CO2 signal is in there. If it is, it is small compared to the overall dominant trend.

I was actually pulling from where you changed the color. I did make one mistake. For the high temp of the last section I did use the fitted line...Using the actual temp you provided it comes to 0.5 vs 0.6 or a 20% increase in speed. This is actually more telling since I believe that is roughly a % change in co2 levels...

NO, CO2 levels have gone up the whole time. Ever increasingly so.

Please provide if you have them...

That was funny. See if you can figure out why.

Now personally, I lean towards AGW but I don't think it (the global change in temperature) is exclusivly (due to) man.

The argument is stupid? Seriously. STUPID? Man, you are nieve and your economic explanations above are not correct in any regard. Changing energy sources does not hurt some/help some. Changing energy sources is wasted production that doesn't produce other stuff. So, expending energy to do something that is not needed decreases the making of stuff (GDP). And, since the new "energy" is more expensive, it now costs more to make the stuff that we do make. Since stuff costs more, everyone gets hurt.

Actually, if you look back into history, EVERY time a society shifted to a new primary energy source it resulted in a massive increase in productivity, a reduction in cost and the rapid development of new technology.

Example oil.

There was a HUGE debate against allowing motorized vehicles on the roads. They were viewed as noisy and unsightly (kind of like how people view wind turbines and solar plants) when compared to the majestic horse. The was incredible pressure citing a collapse of the economy if the horse couldn't safely travel the roads. Entire industries were destroyed. There was a huge saddle and harness manufacturing industry that now no longer exists. I could go on and on.

Instead, oil WAS encouraged as a replacement to the horse even though it cost MUCH more at the time since the laws and infrastructure was designed for the horse. A major argument was environmental protection... Horses make a LOT of manure and exhaust was viewed as cleaner. Once the infrastructure was in place all of a sudden people noticed that the horse industry had been hugely subsidized (i.e. street cleaners and hay production). Once those were taken into account the cost difference evaporated.

The argument is almost identical to todays.

The same goes with the transition from wood to Coal or whale oil to kerosene or kerosene to electricity and of course from man to animal power and then animal to steam and then steam to internal combustion. In each case there was SOME disruption. Some lost work, some businesses went under but at the same time MORE new business were created.

HOWEVER... every time a society is forced to go back to a PRIOR energy source because the current one runs out or becomes unavailable that society typically fails. Just look at the US in the 70s...and that was a very SHORT disruption. We know there is a finite amount of oil and coal. The estimates range from 20 years to 200 or so...

As far as price, I submit that the price difference is all but negligible. We subsidize coal and oil indirectly in almost every facet of our society. From legal protection against pollution to increased health care costs due to particulate matter (asthma and others).

In fact we subsidize oil to the tune of 1/3 of our federal budget!

We maintain the largest military in the world and police all the waterway to provide security for our shipping routes, especially oil. Everything spent on the military outside of national guard, coast guard and border patrol is a subsidy to business owners and Oil et the lions share. We are going to end up spending close to 2 TRILLION dollars in Iraq and please don't pretend that it wasn't about oil. Only the ministry of oil was protected by government troops when we invaded. All other government facilities were left unguarded.


If you dropped 2 Trillion on Solar power over 10 years you could COMPLETELY replace ALL coal with a minimal disruption and almost no change in the price of power.


I study the economics of power generation...you should really do your research first.

[Diogenes]

In fact we subsidize oil to the tune of 1/3 of our federal budget!

We maintain the largest military in the world and police all the waterway to provide security for our shipping routes, especially oil. Everything spent on the military outside of national guard, coast guard and border patrol is a subsidy to business owners and Oil et the lions share.

This is an interesting way of looking at it. Years ago we did the same thing with Rubber from the Philippines and sugar from Hawaii. The US military has long been utilized to insure commerce. Is it wrong to do this with oil? Especially when we don't even get any of the oil we're protecting? I could make the argument that it is wrong to use the military UNLESS we get the oil.

We are going to end up spending close to 2 TRILLION dollars in Iraq and please don't pretend that it wasn't about oil. Only the ministry of oil was protected by government troops when we invaded. All other government facilities were left unguarded.

The "No blood for Oil" mantra is a product of the left. The primary purpose of the war was to insure that Iraq would not have the capability of starting World War III by nuking Tel Aviv. The secondary purpose (unstated) was to create a democracy that would topple all the nearby Monarchy's (cough Saudi Arabia cough) and dictatorships by creating a prosperous democracy and thereby precipitating a Domino effect of Democracy. (Once oppressed people's could see how happy the Iraqis had become, they would demand democratic reforms) (It's happening in Iran.)

The Ministry of Oil was protected because it was the most important ministry to help Iraq become prosperous. WE didn't need it. The Iraqi's needed it. To us it's just a building with records and officials. To Iraq, it is a major source of their income.

Oil helps the cause, but it is not the cause of the cause. We aren't getting any oil from Iraq, and we spent far more money than we will ever get back in oil, and that's IF we ever get any oil from Iraq.

No my friend, what we have witnessed is a very clever act by a man who may one day be called great. For the first time in History, a US President has actually done something that MIGHT someday bring peace to the middle east. Prior to this time, every US President simply sat on their @$$ and bemoaned the lack of peace in the Middle east. George Bush took action. Yes, it had a bunch of bumbles and stumbles in it, but no one before did ANYTHING that might actually have a chance of working.

If this thing unfolds the way it was planned, George W. Bush may be mentioned with Presidents like Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln. Not sure he deserves it because it wasn't his plan. At least he had the good sense and audacity to put it into action.

If you dropped 2 Trillion on Solar power over 10 years you could COMPLETELY replace ALL coal with a minimal disruption and almost no change in the price of power.

I study the economics of power generation...you should really do your research first.

I like Wind, Solar, and Geothermal power. Even if we developed them as you say, how would they help transportation? It appears to be the consensus that the major problem with Electrically powered transportation is the fact that batteries simply cannot be made small enough and with a large enough storage capacity to be truly practical.

I actually thought the Picken's plan was a pretty good idea. Move transportation on to natural gas, and free up some oil needs. Eventually we'll get those usable batteries.

[Luzr]

Then the post war recession, reconstruction

I am not quite sure what are you speaking about. If anything else, there was no big recession after WWII, partly because of reconstruction, and reconstruction if anything lead to higher fossil fuel consumption.