Sunday, March 30, 2008

CO2 vs Global Mean Temperature

Read it and weep, warmaholics! CO2 keeps going up while the temperature went down from the claimed 1998 high (if you believe the baseline) and plateaued. Notice which year is missing on this graph? This past winter (2008) saw the temperature spike sharply downward (way below the zero baseline). See this graph to see what the temperature waveform looks like with 2008 added. Notice that if you do believe the baseline (which is highly suspect), there HAS BEEN NO WARMING SINCE 1998!!! With the increasing CO2, there should be more warming, if we're to believe the theory being shoved down our throats by the "consensus."

This is all the scientific proof needed to dispel the myth, but the media and alarmists are predictably ignoring all this evidence (and all the empirical evidence of the past year that points to cooling).

Co2Msu

2 comments:

Fahran said...

Your grasp of statistics and climate physics is shocking.

Allow me to elaborate: first off, you can't just take the last ten years of statistics, and ignore the other 90, the majority of which indicate an overall warming of the planet. If you ignore the ridiculous spike of 1998, then a warming trend is still visible, even in your graph data.

Secondly, regardless of whether it has a currently visible effect, Carbon Dioxide emissions have a marked effect upon expected temperature . It's not just scientists making stuff up to scare you. Carbon Dioxide is a very good absorber of infra-red radiation - the part of the spectrum that causes heating. Adding Carbon Dioxide increases the height at which infra-red photons can escape the atmosphere, meaning that more are trapped and heat up the earth. God forbid, there's even MATHS to back it up: http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/atmmra/B3/handouts/B3clim6h.pdf

It's not something we can ignore, until we understand it fully.

Now all this does not mean that we've got our climate models exactly right (if you've ever done research into them, you'll find out they're really, really complicated). It does, however, mean theres a complex and not completely understood mechanism in place, that means more Carbon Dioxide = more planet heating. Until this mechanism has been mathematically disproven, we cannot write off global warming.

If you can disprove global warming properly, then do so. But DON'T use bad science to trick people into disbelieving it. It's irresponsible.

G.W. Denier said...

Fahran,

Your grasp of reality, and science, is far more shocking to me than, I'm certain, the other way around. First, I have written extensibly in this blog about statistics and how alarmists like yourself have warped that discipline to suit your own ends.

Let's take this very graph as an example. Alarmists make many of their claims primarily based on a 30-year period of our earth's 4.5 billion-year climate history, which is nothing short of a statistical abomination on its own. Any peer reviewed scientist should be eviscerated for publishing such garbage.

Now, never mind empirical evidence, which alarmists use to their own ends (floods, melting ice, hurricanes, fires, etc.) while ignoring antithetical empirical evidence (harsh, record-setting winters of late). Let's get back to science.

Water vapor and methane absorb far more infrared radiation than CO2, which is really a minor player in our atmosphere, even with manmade increases. There's far more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2; please do research it for yourself.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It never has been and never will be. It's absolutely necessary for life, and our complex ecosystem is far more robust than you fearmongers will admit.

As a matter of fact, all greenhouse gases are absolutely crucial, or we'd freeze to death, which has been happening a lot lately if you'll just admit that to yourself.

My friend, I don't need to disprove global warming. It has done that just fine on its own. All I want to do is point out how the media continues to hype a nonexistent problem for political expediency.