http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/20vs00warming.gif
As far as your answer to Jim Z. Wouldn't that be a part of global? Yes, as you say, they don't measure all the parts of the body. That is the longest record and should be indicative of what the rest of the world averaged out to be. That would be the best available record. My goodness, we are only referring to 0.1 or 0.2 degrees at the most. Eyeballing it could be off that much.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
I would imagine James Hansen fudged it more than that. Also CRU has already admitted that they fudged the figures and we can never get them back. So if this hasn't changed in method or honesty, it is the best available.
So yes, that indicates that the temperature is cyclic in nature.
Just what is that you are trying to say here, Kano? Why not post a link to the article where you found the graphic? ... "Shall we play a game?" (Best said using a computer generated voice. And no, not Steven Hawking's computer generated voice) - http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/28/lesso...
Hmmmmmm, what do we have here? An article that concerns itself with trying to predict the European Climate by using the CET record (Central European Temperature - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadce... The author of the article, Juraj Vanovcan, tries to tell us that natural variations within the climate alone will account for all of the climate variability in Central Europe and that anthropogenic causes are not needed to account for the Central European temperature observations. I agree fully that natural variations in the global climate still exist. Most assuredly in regional zones of the planet. The NAO, AMO, PDO and ENSO (not even mentioned by Jurai) still do play a part in short term, regional weather patterns. But, not the global climate itself. You do understand that Central European temperatures are not an indication of global climate trends, do you not? The same is true of any single region of the planet. So, what is the global temperature like? Well, we can start with the graphic you posted - http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploa... Do you notice something that is not explained by Jurai? When Jurai superimposes the 1970-2010 warming trend over the 1880-1920 warming trend that the 1970-2010 warming trend is averaging ~.78C warmer across the same trend line as the 1880-1920 warming trend line. How do you account for this, Kano? Jurai does not even try to account for this. Why? Would it be because the entire planet has warmed by ~.78C during this same period of time? ... I will let you explain this yourself, Kano. Imagine that! You and Jurai are using the notrickzone website to try to play a trick on us? Ummmm, isn't that a bit redundant?
Every warming and cooling event is triggered by a smaller event which causes a feedback loop. Yes, Earth has had warming and cooling events many times, caused by warming or cooling feedback loops triggered by plate tectonics, volcanoes, species changing the atmosphere, or even meteor impacts. It just so happens that this warming event was triggered by the burning of coal by humans about 200 years ago. Now that the ice caps have started melting it is near impossible to stop, but if we drastically lower our CO2 emissions right now we can mitigate the damage to the ecosystems that give us life. This is the biggest challenge the human race has ever had to face, and the fact that governments aren't responding more quickly is extremely disappointing. The American government had an amazing response when World War 2 began, we changed the country almost overnight to respond to the threat of war. Now, in the face of a way bigger problem than World War 2, we need to have that same ingenuity and cooperation, use the research being done to strategize as a global force and restore the balance that created us. Plants return CO2 to the ground when the grow and die, all we have to do is reduce our emissions and increase the ability of members of the plant kingdom, especially the marine plant species who are most effective at fixing carbon. To do that, we need to stop these large corporations from abusing our resources. So tell your governments to get off their asses and show these corporations that we won't lay back and take it anymore!
The change in CO2 is real, clearly caused by humans, and the change is much larger and faster than any natural change in the last million years.
The climate is just barely beginning to change now; the temperature has hardly changed, and only some ice has melted so far. But since the rate of CO2 emissions increases every hear (or has done ever year in the last 200 or so), the total amount in the air will quickly (compared to 200 years, still slowly compared to human time scales) increase dramatically, like double, triple, 10 times. By the time the climate effects are obvious to most people it will be far too late to go back. Or going back will take all our resources and require hundreds of years to accomplish. In such a case we would more than likely just choose to adapt to the new climate. The cost will crush the world economy either way. Better and cheaper to find alternatives to fossil fuel now, while we can still do it on the cheap (hundreds of billions of dollars instead of hundreds of trillions or even quadrillions).
"Lets compare the 1880's and 1920's to our recent warming"
Yes lets do that, but not use a graph prepared by a denier blog, of course if you do that then this denier charade falls apart.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#g...
Then we have this little gem
"how dramatic showing graphs in tiny percentages of a degree C, why don't you show them in percentages of degree F instead, it would look even more dramatic."
Wow (yet again) the graph by CR or the one I supply by NASA uses the minimum and maximum temperate to fit the scale in either C or F it would look exactly the same, only the scale on the side would change. I guess you will say I am insulting you again, but I continue to simply point out you haven't a clue what you are talking about and it's your own statements that continue to show that.
C is used because it is the universal measure of temperate used around the world, even in the U.S. most weather sites acknowledge that by offering a conversion to C.
Given that world wide most countries now use centigrade with only the U.S. and a handful of others still using Fahrenheit
Is this really the nit picking best a denier can do, that's sad.
P.S. note how your graph has temps rising from 1970 when all the real data has temps not starting to rise till the mid 1970's, so they aren't even trying to stick to real data.
That is also what the CRU data shows
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/42197...
So I guess the real question is who invented this denier graph and why did they do such a poor job of faking it.
It isn't apparent where they got their data from on your link but it did mention CET record so I looked up that and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/br...
I see that Brits haven't experienced much AGW which is interesting. I thought the Thames regularly froze but whatever. Also there is a bit of a sin wave on that chart indicating it may be cyclical for whatever reasons. I have seen similar charts for other regions such as Sargasso Sea.
http://lv-twk.oekosys.tu-berlin.de/proje...
That one doesn't have as obvious a "cyclical" nature to it.
Varying and cyclical aren't synonymous.
Let's see How many times do you think you have read and been provided answers explaining it is not a natural cycle? The natural cycle BS is just another skeptic myth. Do you intend to ask questions about all 173 known myths
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warmi...
The real acceleration of AGW was noticed around 1979 Global warming is happening now and CO2 is 393ppm+
You cannot define cycles that way (well, you can, but they are just make-believe).
You need a power spectral density function that shows the frequency signals and their relative strength/weakness – which you can obtain using some kind of discrete or evolutionary (time-dependent) Fourier analyses.
You want to compare the 1880's and 1920's to our present warming. OK
1880's
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
1920's
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
Degrees C is the internationally used temperature scale, especially by scientists.
It probably would. But I am called Climate Realist, not Climate Dramatist. Global warming realism is about getting people to face facts, not to frighten them. I believe in a positive future, run by clean energy sources, such as solar, wind and nuclear power. Fear leads people to do dumb things, which are actually counterproductive to solving the problem of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclea...
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Anti-Keys...
Its in cycles
Lets compare the 1880's and 1920's to our recent warming
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/20vs00warming.gif
it is a cycle.
