We are told that increasing CO2 levels cause/are causing the temps to rise, however the geological record shows this to be the opposite. Even if we look at the past 70 years (post 1940) when mans activity is supposed to be most pronounced we find that CO2 has risen for all 70 years but the temps have been either stable or falling for 40 of the 70 years. This would suggest to me that CO2 does not in fact cause the temp to rise but for others this information is of no concern because there is a general agreement amongst some scientists (IPCC) that the opposite is true.
One thing at a time.
We are told that increasing CO2 levels cause/are causing the temps to rise, however the geological record shows this to be the opposite.
The geological record actually does not say anything about what is happening now, this is a very curious thing to say. We know that CO2 levels are rising on their own now, just because they rose as a result of rising temperatures 20K and 120K years ago does not at all contradict anthropogenic global warming theory. (Oh Look!! I called it a theory!)
The geological record is in fact fully compatible with our current understanding of how the climate system works. CO2 did not instigate the warming trend, but CO2's greenhouse effect is entirely necessary if we want to explain the magnitude of warming and cooling that was repeatedly triggered by tiny orbital focings from Milankovich cycles. It is all explained ad nauseum here atCO2 lags, not leads. And here and here and here.
CO2 has risen for all [past] 70 years but the temps have been either stable or falling for 40 of the 70 years.
CO2 is not the only factor affecting global climate. Regardless, the correlation is quite good over the past 100 years (why did crakar choose 70 I wonder?). The cooling in the mid-century is not without explanation, it is here.
Besides, I don't find that characterization of the temperature trend very accurate.
(image taken from this page)
this information is of no concern
No. It has been analyzed and understood in the full context of the climate system and our understanding of physical properties of matter. This information was not eagerly seized apon as an excuse to toss out everything we wished we didn't know and merrily live with our collective heads in the sand, that's all.
Hi there - I found your blog through the recommendation of an AGW believer scientist yesterday. I'll admit to being ... well, a disbeliever kinda'.... By "your" definitions (and those on realclimate.org) I'm not a skeptic -- since I don't have the background knowledge to be skeptical. I personally don't feel that I am a denier since I am not truly denying it. It's more that the people I don't trust are on the bandwagon. Yes, I'm somewhat conservative, and no, I didn't vote for Obama. There are so many insults on these pages I thought I'd bring all that up ahead of time.
That said, reading this blog has been an enlightening experience. The posts of crackar and Trevor and the resulting replies have been very interesting.
My main question is what changes would need to be made in society to stop or reverse the trends? (I'm not even sure if reversing is desired...)
Another poster here, mikatollah maybe?, wrote of what he did on a personal level. Well, heck, I've already done that, more to save money more than anything else. What else is there? Would society have to change along the lines of what peak oil people are saying?
Any links or advice on where to go (so to speak) would be appreciated.
I doubt I'll post much, but I will be nosing around in the future.
Joe Romm's book: Hell or High Water explains what can be done to try to soften the impact of AGW and to avoid calamity.
He also runs a blog called Climate Progress at:
BTW, my site linked in my name above may help you. I try to bring the current science to the general public in fairly simple language. Those peer-reviewed journals can be mathematical yawners for non-scientists. :)
Hey Scott and JuliB, also have a read of Professor Plimer's book for the other side of the argument.
(I realise I'm rabbiting on about it.)
Isn't it imoportant to get all aspects of information about a given topic?
Well done Craker14!
You got your own "How To"!
I think that's just brilliant!
Keep up the good work, I look forward to
some facinatin' readin'!
It's like you've been elevated above the rank and file skeptics like me. I Love it!
Yes i agree Michael, i only hope Coby remembers me when he is given the "believers blog site of the year" award.
Just to clear a few things up, i choose 70 years because i felt it was easier that way and also from 1940 we are supposed to have started to have a measurable effect on climate. I can change it so we go back 500K years if you want i dont mind, the further back the better really.
I will respond with more in due course.
"also have a read of Professor Plimer's book"
If you are going to read Pilmer's book, I suggest doing a little bit of googling. His book is filled with verifiably wrong information. Specifically take a look at his response to the questions posed by Monbiot.
Also Tim Lambert had several posts outlining Pilmer's dishonesty.
"It's more that the people I don't trust are on the bandwagon."
Then ignore the bandwagon. Focus on what scientific organizations are saying. JuliB, given the bio you posted I am going to assume you don't trust the IPCC. So ignore them (even though there really isn't a good reason to ignore the IPCC). But what about the National academies of science of 32 countries? What about AAAS? Or what about the many scientific organization listed here.
Ignore Gore. Ignore Obama. Ignore the 'liberal media'. Focus on the scientists.
ScruffyDan, THANK YOU for saying that. I lean left myself but detest the abuse and misrepresentation of the AGW theory by politicians and by the media both left and right. Helping the people of the world understand and counteract man's effect on global climate ought to be as factual, unsensational, and apolitical a thing as possible. I don't want AGW to be true any more than anyone else, but I'm counting on legitimate science to illuminate the truth on the matter. And at the moment it tells us that this is the reality, and that we likely have to act quickly and deliberately to save our children and grandchildren from a much more difficult future.
I think this all speaks to just how effectively prominent denialist voices have branded all scientific organizations as part of a vast conspiratorial political establishment. And of course, it also demonstrates that some folks (the vast majority, perhaps?) leave high school and even college with little or no understanding of the nature of the scientific process.