temperatures have remained constant for the past 10 years or why we are at the same global temperature as we were in 1940, instead all I got was a blathering Australian yammering on about people on Youtube.

Both of these claims are patently false, as a quick look at this graph will show.

Claim #1 looks like a mutated form of the conservative talking about that tempteratures jumped in 1998 but have since dropped. It is true that 1998 set a record in terms of world temperature that we have not reached again yet, but you can see that the overall trend in the past decade (e.g from 1999 to the prese...

temperatures have remained constant for the past 10 years or why we are at the same global temperature as we were in 1940, instead all I got was a blathering Australian yammering on about people on Youtube.

Both of these claims are patently false, as a quick look at this graph will show.

Claim #1 looks like a mutated form of the conservative talking about that tempteratures jumped in 1998 but have since dropped. It is true that 1998 set a record in terms of world temperature that we have not reached again yet, but you can see that the overall trend in the past decade (e.g from 1999 to the present), as well as the past 2, 3, decades, is one of growing temperatures.

Claim #2 is just false. Temperatures did shoot up dramatically in the 1930s,

Both of these claims are patently false, as a quick look at this graph will show.

First of all I would like to know who on earth wrote this graph, it looks like it was drawn in Paint for heaven's sake. You certainly can't tell what the exact figures are, though you obviously get the impression that the temperatures are going up.

Claim #1 looks like a mutated form of the conservative talking about that tempteratures jumped in 1998 but have since dropped.

Why have they dropped at all?

Claim #2 is just false. Temperatures did shoot up dramatically in the 1930s, and then declined in the 1940s, but since the 1980s we have surpassed the...

read more»

Both of these claims are patently false, as a quick look at this graph will show.

First of all I would like to know who on earth wrote this graph, it looks like it was drawn in Paint for heaven's sake. You certainly can't tell what the exact figures are, though you obviously get the impression that the temperatures are going up.

Claim #1 looks like a mutated form of the conservative talking about that tempteratures jumped in 1998 but have since dropped.

Why have they dropped at all?

Claim #2 is just false. Temperatures did shoot up dramatically in the 1930s, and then declined in the 1940s, but since the 1980s we have surpassed the temperature level in the 1930s.

First of all he didn't say that temperatures have been the same since the 1930s, he said they've been the same since the 1940s. And even if we have surpassed the levels set in the 1930s, as you so aptly pointed out we are now once again declining! The only thing any of this tells me is that we're seeing obvious patterns! And am I the only one who thinks that 100 years worth of information about a planet is a little small when it's supposed to be billions of years old? Honestly it's just rediculous.

First of all I would like to know who on earth wrote this graph, it looks like it was drawn in Paint for heaven's sake.

In the clip I say where the graph comes from and I give the link to the PDF of the IPCC report it comes from, including the page number. But I guess that won't stop people intent on denying the obvious from making dumb cracks about how a graph looks.

Why have they dropped at all?

I think the more important question is why do we see this larger trend over the past 100 years which is glaringly obvious to anyone who looks at the graph rather than get hanged up on random fluctuations.

And am I the only one who thinks that 100 years wor...

read more»

First of all I would like to know who on earth wrote this graph, it looks like it was drawn in Paint for heaven's sake.

In the clip I say where the graph comes from and I give the link to the PDF of the IPCC report it comes from, including the page number. But I guess that won't stop people intent on denying the obvious from making dumb cracks about how a graph looks.

Why have they dropped at all?

I think the more important question is why do we see this larger trend over the past 100 years which is glaringly obvious to anyone who looks at the graph rather than get hanged up on random fluctuations.

And am I the only one who thinks that 100 years worth of information about a planet is a little small when it's supposed to be billions of years old?

Scientists can infer information about the earth's atmosphere hundreds of thousands of years ago using ice cores drilled in Antarctica. The data suggest a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature--the more CO2 is released, the greater the temperature. We know that the high levels of CO2 we have now is man-made. The conclusion about human-made global warming is obvious.

The IPCC puts out a lot of reports, but I think I found the paragraph you are quoting from the IPCC's Third Assessment [url=http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/045.htm]here , the 3rd from last paragraph.

People who take Willhelm's argument that with this statement the IPCC is waffling on anthropogenic global warming really, really, should look at this website. The fact is, the IPCC isn't doing that at all. The paragraph does not even appear in a conclusion section. It is part of a methods section laying out the logic of climate models. All they are saying in this section is this: A rise in temperature is not sufficient to prove anthropogenic global warming. You need to do ...

The IPCC puts out a lot of reports, but I think I found the paragraph you are quoting from the IPCC's Third Assessment [url=http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/045.htm]here , the 3rd from last paragraph.

People who take Willhelm's argument that with this statement the IPCC is waffling on anthropogenic global warming really, really, should look at this website. The fact is, the IPCC isn't doing that at all. The paragraph does not even appear in a conclusion section. It is part of a methods section laying out the logic of climate models. All they are saying in this section is this: A rise in temperature is not sufficient to prove anthropogenic global warming. You need to do other tests.

In the part that Willhelm doesn't quote--the two paragraphs following this one--the IPCC then goes on and says that the Second Assessment did those tests and concluded that the evidence was consistent with anthropogenic global warming, with the usual provisions about absolute certainty being elusive.

In the clip I say where the graph comes from and I give the link to the
PDF of the IPCC report it comes from, including the page number. But I
guess that won't stop people intent on denying the obvious from making
dumb cracks about how a graph looks.

I didn't read what the clip had to say, I simply looked at the graph. And if the IPCC drew that they should be ashamed of themselves, unless that's not the original. It's not just the way it looks JK, there is no way to tell what the exact figures are. For example, if I wanted to see what the global surface temperature was in 1962, there's no way I could tell what it was from this graph, and that btw is just one example. And let'...

In the clip I say where the graph comes from and I give the link to the
PDF of the IPCC report it comes from, including the page number. But I
guess that won't stop people intent on denying the obvious from making
dumb cracks about how a graph looks.

I didn't read what the clip had to say, I simply looked at the graph. And if the IPCC drew that they should be ashamed of themselves, unless that's not the original. It's not just the way it looks JK, there is no way to tell what the exact figures are. For example, if I wanted to see what the global surface temperature was in 1962, there's no way I could tell what it was from this graph, and that btw is just one example. And let's not even get started on the average sea level.

I think the more important question is why do we see this larger trend
over the past 100 years which is glaringly obvious to anyone who looks
at the graph rather than get hanged up on random fluctuations.

Random fluctuations? And if these "random fluctuations" are occuring by the decade, which is obviously what's happening, what evidence is there to show that the current rise in temperature isn't just a "random fluctuation" that's been occuring over the century? 100 years might seem like a long time to us humans, but it's barely a blink of an eye for a multi billion year old Earth. And how do we know that temperatures won't fall within the next decade or two to their 1980s level (where you say they surpassed the records set in 1930s)? It really seems to me that we do not have enough information about what exactly changes global temperatures, I think if we did we'd be able to more accurately assess what's happening. Instead they're just "random fluctations", amazing.

Scientists can infer information about the earth's atmosphere hundreds of thousands of years ago using ice cores drilled in Antarctica. The data suggest a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature--the more CO2 is released, the greater the temperature. We know that the high levels of CO2 we have now is man-made. The conclusion about human-made global warming is obvious.

Where do I start? First, how does one infer how much CO2 was in the atmosphere hundreds of thousands of years ago? What exactly is the process that they use to determine this? Second, thankyou for admitting that the data suggests only a casual link between CO2 and temperature, I believe that's what I sai...

Scientists can infer information about the earth's atmosphere hundreds of thousands of years ago using ice cores drilled in Antarctica. The data suggest a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature--the more CO2 is released, the greater the temperature. We know that the high levels of CO2 we have now is man-made. The conclusion about human-made global warming is obvious.

Where do I start? First, how does one infer how much CO2 was in the atmosphere hundreds of thousands of years ago? What exactly is the process that they use to determine this? Second, thankyou for admitting that the data suggests only a casual link between CO2 and temperature, I believe that's what I said earlier. What evidence is there, other then a casual link, to show that CO2 is responsible for rising temperature? What evidence other then inference? Again, it seems to me that we really do not have enough information about what determines global temperatures to make such a rash assumption. The conclusion about human-made global warming seems about as obvious to me as a flatearth did to most just a few hundred years ago. Not to mention other obvious blunders made by human reasoning.

It's not just the way it looks JK, there is no way to tell what the exact figures are.

The graph is a capture from a PDF document. If you have a hard time reading it and want to have a reasoned discussion about it, I suggest you load up the original PDF and look at the page where I say it is located rather than carping about it. I can't go to your house and present you with a blown up version of the graph after all.

Random fluctuations? And if these "random fluctuations" are occuring by the decade, which is obviously what's happening, what evidence is there to show that the current rise in temperature isn't just a "random fluctuation" that's been occuring over the ce...

read more»

It's not just the way it looks JK, there is no way to tell what the exact figures are.

The graph is a capture from a PDF document. If you have a hard time reading it and want to have a reasoned discussion about it, I suggest you load up the original PDF and look at the page where I say it is located rather than carping about it. I can't go to your house and present you with a blown up version of the graph after all.

Random fluctuations? And if these "random fluctuations" are occuring by the decade, which is obviously what's happening, what evidence is there to show that the current rise in temperature isn't just a "random fluctuation" that's been occuring over the century?

That has been considered and rejected. From the IPCC's Fourth Assessment report, page 39:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely
unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling, not warming.

First, how does one infer how much CO2 was in the atmosphere hundreds of thousands of years ago? What exactly is the process that they use to determine this?

I'm not going to do your research for you.

Second, thankyou for admitting that the data suggests only a casual link between CO2 and temperature,

I said the link was CAUSAL. That is, scientists are confident that CO2 CAUSES temperatures to increase.

And as for the IPCC's credibility, if you want to stack their credibility against the cranks and industry hacks who make up most of the skeptics be my guest.

The graph is a capture from a PDF document. If you have a hard time reading it and want to have a reasoned discussion about it, I suggest you load up the original PDF and look at the page where I say it is located rather than carping about it. I can't go to your house and present you with a blown up version of the graph after all.

I did. It's the exact same thing. The global temperature average is slightly easier to read, but still. Anyway, there's no point in arguing over the graph anymore, so let it be.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentration...

read more»

The graph is a capture from a PDF document. If you have a hard time reading it and want to have a reasoned discussion about it, I suggest you load up the original PDF and look at the page where I say it is located rather than carping about it. I can't go to your house and present you with a blown up version of the graph after all.

I did. It's the exact same thing. The global temperature average is slightly easier to read, but still. Anyway, there's no point in arguing over the graph anymore, so let it be.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations”

Oh my, we've gone from "likely" to "very likely". It sounds like even the famed IPCC is cautious about being definitive about what they think causes global warming.

I'm not going to do your research for you.

I have done my research. I wasn't impressed.

I said the link was CAUSAL. That is, scientists are confident that CO2 CAUSES temperatures to increase.

Ah, I misread that then. However, there is still plenty of skepticism over the CO2-Temp link.

And as for the IPCC's credibility, if you want to stack their
credibility against the cranks and industry hacks who make up most of
the skeptics be my guest.

I'll stack up their credibility against themselves, and I have thus far seen a lack of it. And there are plenty of scientists that dispute global warming, global warming alarmists just get more attention from biased liberal media.

And as for the IPCC's credibility, if you want to stack their
credibility against the cranks and industry hacks who make up most of the skeptics be my guest.

See, this is really what it comes down to. A willingness to ignore science and instead opt for the words of politicians. The IPCC, today, is a shadow of it's initial integrity. JK doesn't seem to comprehend that the "science" does not exist in SPMs and synthesis reports. These reports are only the tools to further propaganda. Yet, the hundreds of clips regarding the science of climate change, and the scientists wiht the evidence are ignored by the lunatic fringe.

JK is not an honest broker. These reports are entirely ...

And as for the IPCC's credibility, if you want to stack their
credibility against the cranks and industry hacks who make up most of the skeptics be my guest.

See, this is really what it comes down to. A willingness to ignore science and instead opt for the words of politicians. The IPCC, today, is a shadow of it's initial integrity. JK doesn't seem to comprehend that the "science" does not exist in SPMs and synthesis reports. These reports are only the tools to further propaganda. Yet, the hundreds of clips regarding the science of climate change, and the scientists wiht the evidence are ignored by the lunatic fringe.

JK is not an honest broker. These reports are entirely irrelevant. There is, however, still a slight bit of integrity in the IPCC.

Here is an article I found discussing "Warming Catastrophe" skepticism. It's very interesting, because it actually makes the point that "Climate Change Deniers" are actually the one who see climate change as a normal event, where as Global Warmists are the ones who think climate change is abnormal. They refer to a time when the climate was "sustainable", which actually never truly existed.

http://www.jbs.org/node/2879

The global warming myth harks back to a lost Golden Age of climate
stability, or, to employ a more modern term, climate "sustainability."
Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron. The fact that
we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the Mille...

Here is an article I found discussing "Warming Catastrophe" skepticism. It's very interesting, because it actually makes the point that "Climate Change Deniers" are actually the one who see climate change as a normal event, where as Global Warmists are the ones who think climate change is abnormal. They refer to a time when the climate was "sustainable", which actually never truly existed.

http://www.jbs.org/node/2879

The global warming myth harks back to a lost Golden Age of climate
stability, or, to employ a more modern term, climate "sustainability."
Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron. The fact that
we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the Millennium tells
us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires, than about
climate. Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred to as
'climate change deniers'; precisely the opposite is true. Those who
question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate
change — it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the
norm.

This is just one quote from the article. You should read it in its entirety, it's very interesting.

And notice that they always defend "Global Warming Catastrophe" by saying that SCIENTISTS are confident "that it's man made". Yet the IPCC was formed by a political body, not by scientists.

And notice how jmjoness earlier defended the idea that20th century global warming is normal by citing the John Birch Society. That's a group I trust to weigh in on climate issues.

I also note that this discussion started out with false claims about how temperatures 60 years were the same as they are now, as well as the false claim that temperatures have been constant over the past 10 years. Now that those claims have been disproven, jmjoness now says he has never denied climate ...

And notice that they always defend "Global Warming Catastrophe" by saying that SCIENTISTS are confident "that it's man made". Yet the IPCC was formed by a political body, not by scientists.

And notice how jmjoness earlier defended the idea that20th century global warming is normal by citing the John Birch Society. That's a group I trust to weigh in on climate issues.

I also note that this discussion started out with false claims about how temperatures 60 years were the same as they are now, as well as the false claim that temperatures have been constant over the past 10 years. Now that those claims have been disproven, jmjoness now says he has never denied climate change--the changes we see are just within the natural variation of the earth's climate, a claim disputed by the scientists who write the IPCC reports. But hey, who needs scientists when you have JBS?