To "atl134" yes, according to the AGW experts, there has been no warming
since 2000. Read "Global Warming Melts Away" at American Thinker. If
you believe CO2 is driving AGW, then so is the Federal Debt.You
didn't read the studies that I quoted.Mauna Loa only has data
since 1958, anything before that you have to go to other records, which in the
case of CO2 are the direct chemical measurements. Those measurements showed
that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1930's than there is
today. The direct chemical measurements are taken around the world and provide
a better data set than a sing point in the middle of the ocean.
@RedshirtNo warming since 2000? All 10 of the 10 warmest years on record
were in the past 13 years and the 2000s were .2C warmer than the 1990s."Also, what about the effect of water vapor, as many studies have shown,
water vapor causes more warming than CO2 in the atmosphere."Because CO2 is the greenhouse gas that has increased in atmospheric
concentration by 25% over the past century, which makes it more important than
water vapor when it comes to the matter of recent change even though yes water
vapor is the largest component of the greenhouse effect."It also
shows that in the 1930’s the CO2 measurements were much higher than they
are today."That's not true, at least not globally.
That's a large part of why Mauna Loa is a good site to use because
it's out in the middle of nowhere rather than plunked in a city downwind of
a coal plant. It's not affected by local point source changes nearly as
much as other station locations and is more representative of what the global
levels are when they're dispersed throughout the entire atmosphere.
To “Roland Kayser” another statistic left out is that we have not
had any significant warming since 2000. See “Surprise! No warming in last
11 years” at Hot Air, or else look up the original interview at the Daily
Mail. As the AGW alarmists say, you can’t take one year and claim it
proves your idea. One warm year does not mean anything.To
“atl134” the Mauna Loa CO2 data set is not that great to use. It
only goes back to 1960, while there is a long history of direct chemical
measurement that shows that we had much higher CO2 concentrations than we
currently have. It also shows that in the 1930’s the CO2 measurements
were much higher than they are today. See “Measurement of Pre-Industrial
CO2 Levels” by Dr. Timothy Ball. In other words, why are we using bad
data to base AGW theories on? Also, what about the effect of water vapor, as
many studies have shown, water vapor causes more warming than CO2 in the
Ouch? Are you trying to tell me you can tell the difference of 2/10 of a
degree. An over statement if I have ever seen one.As to whether or
not this is caused by humans, I doubt it. There are lots of hypotheses, but
they can only be proved out over the next couple of centuries. The computer
models are not facts, but assumptions and guesses at what may come to pass in
the next 100 years. Only time will tell. But if you have kept up with the
topic, computer models on this subject have been wrong time and again.
A statistic that the article left out: We have now had 328 consecutive months of
above average temperatures.
To quote other well-known experts in the field of climatology, "I'm
sure tired of shoveling this global warming!".
Those who believe in global warming should take personal responsibility for the
part they believe they play in it. They have a duty to turn off their
computers, sell their cars, pay for carbon credits, and grow their own food
somewhere.I'm sure China is going it's part to eliminate
the problem. Now it's up to the tree huggers in our country to do theirs.
Much of the problem is that everything effects something else. The climate rises
in temperature and it causes droughts, fires, polar ice melting and all that
causes more CO2 emmisions.People are clinging to the argument that
man didn't do it. It just happens to perfectly coincide with man's use
of fossil fuels over that last 100 years. Weird. Burn the hocky stick.
@mtmanmcGranted I'm not part of NOAA but I'd refer to the Mauna
Loa CO2 dataset (obviously I can't link things here but it's easy to
google image it) that shows a rather consistent, steady increase in CO2
concentration year to year which suggests something that's not a temporary
thing like a volcano or a bad wildfire year (in fact US wildfires, though up
this past decade, are still way lower than they were over half a century ago
when frankly we just didn't have the capacity to fight them).
Question for NOAA how much carbon dioxide has been cause by wildfires and
volcanoes during the past 5 years?