I don't see anything to indicate temperatures would start falling soon. The ups and downs prior to 1860 appear to come in regular 10-15-20 year cycles. After that as more factories were built and started pumping soot into the air the temperature starts to trend upwards from about 1900 until 1940 where - to me as an untrained observer - it looks like there was another natural 20 year cold cycle that was suppressed by the greenhouse effect of rising CO2, resulting in much smaller than usual dip and then temperatures start rocketing up again from about 1970 until now. So why would temperatures suddenly start to fall? And if we are about to hit a natural cold cycle, why wouldn't it repeat the same pattern as the 1940-1970 period where it was likely to be artificially suppressed?
Global warming is not the problem. It is global stupidity thinking government is competent enough to save us. Why tax us when a little quantitive easing can ease our woes.....
Climate change is real, in Perth the temperature went from 6 - 21 in under 24 hours. We better tax it or else we might get wiped out.....
Look, if you think you're smarter than the large majority of the world's climate scientists based on whatever research into Al Gore you might have done and some other stuff about God, I don't see it as my place to argue with you. Thank you for the welcome.
That sudden change in temperature has absolutely nothing to do with the sun, it must be all the Co2 you relieved out. Reminder to self, dont eat no more baked beans. Thats another idea, maybe we should tax beans while were at it, since they make us 'release gas' more. More farts = more Co2. Tax on beans = less farts = less Co2. Bankrupt Heinz Baked Beans save the world is my new slogan.
Actually, just to be a smart arse: More farts = more CH4 (methane) Methane, incidentally, is about 20 times more potent than CO2 in terms of alleged greenhouse effects. Which reminds me, I have read that one of the biggest contributers to the "green house effect" is cattle flatulence due to increasing amounts of cattle farming - not CO2 (source: http://www.climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/CO2_equivalents.htm) Gillard needs to tax cattle farts - cause it's all:
I'll admit I have a a problem with the berkeley chart simply because it doesn't come with an explanation that as you move from left to right, the number of sample site areas around the globe that data is taken from increases. Thus the chart is not correctly normalised. Best paper I've read so far on the 150 year graph is: http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/Papers/JonesEtal99-SAT150.pdf ...if you read it all, not just the conclusions. But the question is not whether or not the planet is warming or cooling, and I've certainly no objection to any honestly presented incentive that may move our energy usage into a culture of more efficiency and greater sustainability. But I do find it disturbing that socialogically we find we are either frightened or bullied into it, thus creating factions for and against. And then of course each camp considers the other to be the 'flat earth society'. I believe (as one of those Asperger's that togetherwe mentioned) that science is not divisive until it becomes political. Then it stops admitting that there's more information yet to come....
So that we aren't doing an Al Gore and cherry picking little slices of graphs to deceive people, let's put your chart in context, because context is everything.
Here's another. Let's see if a bit if human generated CO2 will be enough to change this little graph.... We had better hope we can generate lots of global warming because if we don't we are headed for extinction. Source Schlumberger. Image based on data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
I agree. Could you provide some background on the people who prepared that chart? I got mine from a group working out of one of the most highly respected universities in the world and the entire data set is available for independent review.
The names of the climatologist and the meteorologist who prepared the chart are printed at the bottom of the image. In any case a search will show that the chart, while presented as a low resolution graph in order to give context to the text is basically accurate.
I don't really have a problem with the resolution of the image, but I'm a bit concerned about taking the word of a newspaper weather man (Mann) and an insurance lawyer with no formal qualifications in climate science (Harris) over the word of experienced teams practising proper, transparent data analysis like the one at Berkeley.
So I'm driving by this factory today that was pumping out a yellow coloured smoke and I was thinking to myself ... "Why don't they tax all pollutants if taxing polluters fixes the problem of pollution? Why are they so singularly focused on the carbon compound that we exhale?" ... hmmmm. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record The science is definitely not in on Human Induced Global Warming, yet the deceit of Gillard is confirmed. Why people continue to believe in anything she says is beyond me, let alone the things she is personally motivated to promote out of self-preservation. Of course, that is not to say that Tony Abbott or more pollution is good either. :lol:
Anyone who thinks humans are doing anywhere near enough to contribute to "global warming" are brainwashed and/or stupid. Stackers aware of impending doom caused by governments and bankers and yet you're falling for one of their biggest cons ever... so sad.
JulieW,,Interesting video^^^^^It could only happen in America...Do you ever see the video about the bloke that was trying to exchange a 1oz gold coin for $1 so that he could buy himself a cup of coffee. Chemistry was one element that I know very little about but at least I know what h2o is even though I don't even know whether I should type it in capitals or not. Ah the world must be getting dumber. Oh I mean the people. Regards Errol 43
Yes Errol 43 I did see that one. I think the point they make is that people are 'joiners' or not, and possibly that's why carbon tax gets such a grilling here on SS, since I think that most SSers are by nature questioning and cynical about the "we're from the government and we're here to help you" line. As I said previously in this thread, if they attacked the polluters with a tax I'd be all for it, but CO2 tax is just stupid, or cynical exploitation of the 'joiners' by financial interests - either way it doesn't nail the real problems, it's just an incidental band-aid to some of the pollution issues in the same way that banning lead in petrol was supposed to help the children avoid brain damage but instead helped the petrol companies and a bunch of politicians get re-elected who had 'done something'. http://www.whale.to/b/simons.html#THE_BIG_CON_ And for all you guys doing petrol type things: p.s http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-03/pm-rules-out-carbon-tax-on-petrol/2780490 and of course so that the government will not be hit by petrol tax shortfalls, and re-election fundraising shortfalls from car and fuel industry lobbyists.
Chopped down 10 trees last week that I planted for firewood bloody council come around taking me to court for chopping down natives there side of the fence :lol:
