honest question to the AGW believers on this board. Please point out if I have framed this question in an unfair way that I can not see. I went to Wood For Trees and set up a side by side comparison of the 2 warming periods we have seen in the past 100 years. Because I needed a record that went back 110 years I chose one of the surface-based data sets because the satellite record only goes back to 1979. I then tried to isolate the entire warming period we experienced in the early 20th Century. To the best of my ability to discern, this appears to be 1908 to 1943. (by all means, if you think i should make this longer or shorter, then PLEASE correct me). After doing that, I came to the modern warming period and tried to isolate the beginning of it. This APPEARS to have started in earnest in 1971. Because I already used a 35 year period in the early part of the Century, i just used the same amount of time (is that fair? If not, tell me how it is not and I will reconsider). That took us to 2006. Obviously, going til NOW would have been stronger for my position…then again, going until only 1998 would show a more dramatic slope, but I still think two similar time periods side by side is more fair. So here is the result: My question is this. Since 1943 when the earlier warming period ended, we have had a HUGE percentage of the anthropogenic CO2 released. If CO2 is the driver that you guys believe it is, why have we not seen a far more dramatic level (slope) of warming? It appears the two slopes are identical. any differences would not be statistically significant. thoughts? Wood For Trees interactive graphs
This is not a serious inquiry and it absolutely not scientific. Are you seriously claiming that one warming trend proves or disproves something about another warming trend? Why don't you show us the solar cycle and rising CO2 levels imposed over both trends so we can begin an actual scientific inquiry.
pasotex, the issue is how do you isolate the signal from the noise? If global temperature has varied in the past as much as it has this century (or half century) how does one deconvolute the data so that we can understand exactly what effect CO2 has had on global temperature? I think a big problem in this issue (which inquiries like this reveal) is that the signal-to-noise ratio is small.
Wait, that's your response? What we have all heard ad infinitum is that the current warming trend we are on "can not be explained by natural variation" but I am seeing that just 100 years ago we started a warming trend that was almost entirely natural (the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in 1908 through 1943 was a small percentage of current levels) and was virtually identical to the one we just ended in 1998. I am asking how are we so sure that the recent warming of the past 45 years is definitely CO2 related or definitely anthropogenic in its causes? can you at least let me know why the recent warming should be connected to CO2? Or are you going to claim it is all too complicated and the big scientists have figured it out? I hope we can do better than that.
You are asking questions, empirical in nature, that are best answered in the literature and studies. You seem to think that if we, the board, cannot satisfactorily answer your questions that somehow the science is then on your side? I find your approach to be driven by your politics/religion, not by the data/science. Am I wrong?
wow, so no substantive answers and one insane answer. ok. I guess my point hit a nerve? Sort of awkward for the alarmist side isn't it?
I think mop is simply asking for someone who believes in the scientific establishment's conclusions to explain the basis for those conclusions in light of his comparison. If the comparison is valid, then his question is also valid and deserves an answer. It is up to the "AGW believers" (for lack of a better term) to show why the comparison is invalid, or else to explain the establishment position in light of the comparison, or else to concede the point that our understanding of these things is not to the point that we can "deconvolute" the data (nice term, Monahorns) in scientifically meaningful and consistent ways. If the comparison cannot be invalidated, or if the data cannot be deconvoluted in scientifically meaningful and consistent ways, then belief in the establishment position defaults to a form of faith, or what mop has referred to as an appeal to authority. Which is fine, in my opinion. But we'll need to call it what it is. Posting pictures and calling names and what not doesn't mean very much. So far it looks like a faith position. But we'll see.
I did not realize that science worked in this manner. You post a little graph and claim that it means something and the burden then shifts to others to disprove your claim. This is a pretty sweet gig. I posted a couple of questions about CO2 levels and solar cycles. I have yet to see any answers to these two questions. I could post some random insults too, but this seemed too easy. In answer to mop's question to me about solar cycles, I of course understand that they have an influence on warming particularly long term. Solar variability is an important variable in warming and over the past decade we have been in a low part of the cycle. This is in the process of changing.
Science, fortunately, does not work that way. You and mop need to post some proof for your hypothesis. At present, it might as well be a stick drawing.
What proof, then, eliminates solar activity as a meaningful causal factor of the second period that mop cites?
Coel, Paso doesn't like actually responding with substantive posts. His goal is usually to use the least amount of words possible to snark. It's amusing though, because just 2 years ago and before no one would give solar influence any place at the table because all that had been seriously considered was TSI (total solar irradiance) and because this has been fairly consistent over the past century, solar was declared to be a non-starter in terms of a catalyst for the warming we have seen. however, now that the temperatures have not risen as predicted, solar is suddenly very important to warmists.
Solar cycles have been studied and eliminated as a cause of the current warming trend. You guys are pretty much science jokes. You have no familiarity with the literature as well as the quantity and quality of the research that has been done. Do you seriously think that you know more about this than the scientists who actually work in this area? Do you seriously think that the sun (that zany ball of fire in the sky that is the primary source of heat) is some big revelation for its potential impact on warming?
your questions were ridiculous rhetorical points rather than serious inquiries. I am happy to answer questions related to the topic at hand, something you seem keen on avoiding. so tell me about this solar influence that only seems to work when you want it to. was solar responsible for the 1st warming period and not the 2nd? was it responsible for both? or was it responsible for neither?
ah yes…well, i have zero ability to create graphs, so that's why we have been discussing the issue. I thought you had since granted that the sun was not responsible for the warming we had seen. Am I misinterpreting your point? We can talk about CO2 next.
