Noo, I don't believe in it really. Its too ******* cold around the world!
There are two types of Global Warming - The natural changes and then the 'enhanced global warming' caused by humans.
We should be worried because typically massive changes in Global climate often change the face of the earth and cause the end of many species.
Humans in wealthy countries are more than capable of surviving ice-ages and intense heat, but in the case of massive global atmospheric changes over hundreds of years maybe we could lose 80%+ of all human life since most of us are extremely poor (if you have a bank account with money you're in the too 80% of the wealthiest people on earth).
So yes we should worry but the apocalypse could be a thousand years away.
Also, don't let anyone ram the idea 'global warming is our fault' down your throat, we need to care for our planet because we do damage ecology! But if we're having an adverse effect on the climate is yet to be solidly proven, even if the global temp is up by 0.1 degrees. These fluctuations in temp are natural.
>>Trevor. so are you saying that the UAH lower troposphere graph is incorrect or mislabeled or something, typical warmist behavior if you cant argue the facts attack the source, hmm ad-hoc of the first order.<<
How about you demonstrating that you understand your own question by providing the Variance statistics for the graphs instead of hiding behind easily manipulated visual images?
You should be worried that you have not yet been able to advance beyond using WUWT as source for anything other than the psuedo-sciences.
"This is based on the data from the satellite microwave sounding unit (MSU)"
Willis Eschenbach has some serious explaining to do. How did he get data from the MSU all the way to 2013 when the MSU was replaced by the AMSU in 1998? Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_s...
What about it, Kano? Do you want to take a shot at answering this question yourself?
Kano, you complain about Trevor while citing a source who attacks the integrity of the "good folks at UAH". Either Willis Eschenbach is lying, or the Roy Spencer is lying in which case Eschenbach is citing a source which he says is a lie.
You cannot get good information from WUWT, and people who try end up looking like fools. The whole site is set-up to make money from viewership by people who are too gullible to fact check.
Eisenback: "I've divided the results". BS. They are already divided and trended by UAH.
Eisenback: "The tropics have no trend". BS. UAH shows a warming rate of 0.07 degrees per decade, and 0.11 degrees per decade over land.
Eisenback: "Southern Extratropics? No trend." BS. UAH shows a warming trend of 0.09 degrees per decade and 0.11 degrees per decade over land.
Eisenback: "Northern Extratropics? A barely visible trend" BS UAH shows a warming trend of 0.26 degrees per decade. That is a huge rate of 2.6 degrees per century .. and that's looking back with none of the projected acceleration due to feedbacks.
My conclusion, you refuse to learn anything. You refuse to go to any scientific source and instead use for news those sites who play you for a fool. Why would an intelligent person who really wanted to know what UAH data says not go directly to the data? You are well aware that it is available publicly because I have referred to it here many times.
If you really want to know what the UAH data says, go look at it. The linear trends are provided for you at the bottom.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/u...
there is a number of things wrong with the analysis- see link. interesting that extreme weather, stronger storms and droughts are ignored. you can't change the climate without affecting weather.
Good source you’ve linked to, someone who trained as a masseuse and now works in the IT and accounts department of an oil company. Even by the normally appalling standards of WUWT, this post is something else.
Anyone who knows the first thing about climates will immediately see that Eschenbach hasn’t got a clue. His figures are wrong, his assumptions are wrong, his conclusions are wrong, his terminology is wrong, even his geography is wrong.
- - - - - - - - - -
EDIT: RE YOUR ADDED DETAILS
Eschenbach’s post is so abysmal that it doesn’t even warrant commenting on, it’s that glaringly obvious that it’s wrong, but for your benefit I’ll expand a little on each of the points I made:
? His figures are wrong
Baccheus has already demonstrated why.
? His assumptions are wrong
He assumes that if one part of the world hasn’t warmed that there is no threat. Clearly he isn’t aware of the fact that weather patterns have a global dynamic, changes in one place cause disruption to weather everywhere.
? His conclusions are wrong
He talks about “the amazing stability of the planet’s temperature”, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it’s warmed more in the last few decades that has ever been known to warm before, and that current weather and climate is unstable compared to the thousands of years of stability that preceded warming.
? His terminology is wrong
He divides the world into “tropical, extratropical, and polar”. He has redefined the meaning of extratropical, it actually means all areas poleward of the Tropics and therefore, by definition, it includes the Polar regions, not as he seems to think, a region independent of the Polar regions.
? Even his geography is wrong
Eschenbach states “I’ve divided them at the Arctic and Antarctic Circles at 67° North and South, and at the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer at 23° N & S”. The Tropic of Capricorn is in the southern hemisphere, the Tropic of Cancer is in the northern hemisphere, he has them the wrong way round.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/should-we-be-worried/
