Al Gore GW Flim-Flammery

Not flat. Still warming. (Cherry?) Picking out 1998 where, correct me if I'm wrong, there was a very warm El Nino is cherry picking the starting point.

Correct me if I'm wrong but we have also seen a couple of cooling La Ninas in the 2000s-to be clear another El Nino but a much weaker one than in 1998.

Both of those affect temps but in opposite ways. And, like I said before, simply add a few years (average out over 2 or 3 decades) and the trend is pretty obviously towards warming.

Because warm water if often associated with stronger hurricanes. And, I believe, Oceans temps have been rising over recent decades.

Also warming may bring increased rainstorms to parts of Wisconsin which can relate to increased flooding.

http://www.wicci.wisc.edu/impacts.php#9

And other places are likely to see more droughts

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/07/20/the-year-of-drought-and-flood/

I admit just doing a quick search for something mentioning droughts and floods for the last link. But I've actually been hearing for years that Global Warming is likely to relate to both droughts and floods in different locations and this is simply one more source that agrees with that thought.

True. But that means it still could relate to the problems I mentioned.

Now if warming is related to human activity that means humans can make changes to avoid further warming and any associated problems.

And if you say that people should give an error estimate for models I can live with that. Though I'm not about to throw theories scientists have put together out the window when I see a warming trend that is a few decades old and seems to indicate their overall concerns were correct.

 

You did have to do the cherry picking. You already mentioned you were one of the skeptics' believers. So they could have done it and let you faithfully follow whatever point they made without asking, for yourself, how they managed to pick a year that held the strongest El Nino in 2 decades as their initial data point.

You could have cherry picked better if that was your intent but that doesn't prevent them from doing it for you nor make it so you would ever notice if they had.

I did address it, I pointed out that last decade had a couple of La Ninas (which cool), a much weaker El Nino than the 1990s, and still was hotter than the decade (those 1990s) before it. Plus if you actually average out the decade with the link you provided there is a warming trend even then. It isn't as dramatic as in the 1990s but it is there.

So did you hear me?

Also when you look at each of the last 3 decades you see one warmer decade followed by another followed by another. Something that seems to justify rather than deny a theory the Earth is getting warmer.

Now at one point I think I mentioned I'd taken you at face value when you claimed projections weren't being followed. At this point I'd like to see a link to those projections so I can see what you claim is being disproven.

Now if it says the 2000s were supposed to be warmer than the 1990s and warmer than the 2000s actually turned out to be I'd say the projections were at least mostly right (the warming trend has continued from decade to decade).

Don't know, I didn't see much discussion of the chart you provided a link to.

This however does state that.:

"These are some of the basic forces at work when a low-pressure center forms in the atmosphere -- a center that may turn into what people in the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Caribbean regions call a hurricane. What else is happening? Well, as we know, warm, moist air from the ocean's surface begins to rise rapidly. As it rises, its water vap or condenses to form storm clouds and droplets of rain. The condensation releases heat called latent heat of condensation. This latent heat warms the cool air, causing it to rise. This rising air is replaced by more warm, humid air from the ocean below. And the cycle continues, drawing more warm, moist air into the developing storm and moving heat from the surface to the atmosphere. This exchange of heat creates a pattern of wind that circulates around a center, like water going down a drain."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/hurricane1.htm

So warm ocean water is part of the recipe involves hurricanes.


"Meanwhile, some experts look to the future with concern. Some point to periods of intense hurricane activity in Earth's past and worry that such trends may return. Others argue that global warming brought on by the increased production of greenhouse gasses will lead to larger hurricane zones and more powerful storms. After all, hurricanes thrive on warm, moist waters, and a warmer Earth could provide more sustenance for tropical storms."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/hurricane8.htm

Note it just said "hurricanes thrive on warm, moist waters" so warm water very readily is involved with hurricanes.

Really?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Frequency-of-East-African-Droughts-Increasing-181358.shtml

A claim you make but have yet to support with links to said predictions.

 

Sigh.

Ok maybe I misinterpreted what you meant here. When you said that "because I believe what the skeptics are saying" I interpreted that as you saying that you actually believed the skeptics.

That you pointed to 1998 as the start of a stall reinforced that because as I was looking through things online I came across skeptical commentary using that date as the starting of a stall. Using a strong El Nino event as a data starting point does lend itself to skewing data (that was the single hottest year of the 1990s).


Now I don't alway read comments made between 2 other posters so I missed the blog commentary you provided in a link to damedog.

Since I missed your conversation with damedog you could've just referred me to it.

Now from a wikipeida the blog of the guy you mentioned said Global Warming is linked to humans just mostly through means not related to greenhouse gasses-an unusual view in the debate about Global Warming (that humans are responsible just not for the reason most people think).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke#Background

I tried a link to the report he referred to and it didn't work-so I don't know what his other human related reasons are.

Now when I looked at the line for 2000-2010 (the dates I entered) via the link you provided I noticed it was not flat. It was a much slower rate of warmth than in the 1990s but not flat.

You are right in that the slowdown in the rate of growth is something that should be looked into and explained. Various scientists quoted gave different reasons which means there doesn't appear to be a consensus answer on that at this time. Though one of the scientists did give her explanation and a prediction that the rate of warming would increase come 2014. So we'll see if she was right at that point.

We'll see if the slowdown in the rate of warming is temporary or not, on the positive side scientists are looking into it so the they may figure it out-in general the scientific method is an evolutionary process of both finding & solving problems and that should come into play.




Now to a certain extent I am learning as I go. I've heard the big points of concern and look for more articles to flesh the details of those out-hence the reference to the Africa article.

To at least an extent you are learning as you go as well. You didn't know about any of the problems that could relate to Global Warming if it is occurring. The link to wicci I pointed to could help with that-at least with my state.

Anyway thank you for laying out your perspective that the scientists could be right but if so that they have a poor handle on it. That is a position that I found easier to mistake for the typical GW "skeptic".

 

Look, conversations like this can get biogged down in scientific minutae. In general, I agree with the statement made earlier -- if a fantastic claim is being made, I want to see some simple, layman-friendly material demonstrating that fantastic claim.

In addition, the statement "debate is closed, it's done, anyone who debates this is a nutter" had better really be obviously cut and dried. Otherwise my BS detector is activated and I see people who are afraid to deal with opposition or criticism. They avoid it by creating a new orthodoxy.

I'm all for realistic steps being taken to reduce pollution. But too many of these people are just too hysterical and revolutionary to be taken seriously. They've been doomsaying for years, and yet the world isn't that different. There have always been earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, and other such natural phenomenon. There always will be. It's good to strive to be prepared and even to see if we can avoid contributing to them, but when people start insinuating that my private ownership of a car in Canada is a direct factor in the deaths of millions in a tsunami halfway around the world, I start to wonder if their environmental concern is merely a smokescreen for screwing me over.

 

Or the implied fantastic claim that doing something has no effect? Like I pointed out before, isn't it odd to think a global economy wouldn't effect the globe it operates on/within?

And yes it can get bogged down in the science but that is an attempt to see if the claim is right or wrong.

Like, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, most serious people concerned about Global Warming don't claim it causes earthquakes. To do so strikes as unreasonable as it, at least on its face, does not seem to relate to the issue at hand.

For a different analogy there have been wars for thousands of years-perhaps before written history can inform us of. Wars are destructive so we should try to avoid them in general. But if there is a new thing-such as a nuclear war-that changes the impact of a war beyond what has been typical over history.

The new size of the world economy (compared to the history of humanity) may also change beyond what is typical for effects.