Earth has gotten 0.36 degrees warmer in 30 years

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Recent work has refuted the global warming isn't really happening argument.

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,68510,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6

[John Dibble]

.36 degrees...wow, that's a terrifying amount. Of course, never mind that Earth's temperature has fluctuated naturally over time, this must be entirely our fault.

[A18]

Yeah. By the time I'm dead, it'll have gone up almost a degree.

[Alcon]

Well, I believe that global warming is happening in very small amounts.  I am sure that this does screw some ecosystems up, and I certainly believe we should limit our pollution because, frankly, there's no way something bad doesn't come of it in some way.

However, with such miniscule amounts, I question harsh measures on this sort of thing.  However, I don't think global warming is the sole reason to limit pollution - just look at China for a prime example of the clear human effect of pollution.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah. By the time I'm dead, it'll have gone up almost a degree.

The rate of increase may be increasing, and you guys are underestimating the effect of small changes on mean global temperature.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

See, this is where the Green lobby gets things wrong. No one cares about global tempreture. It's a meaningless statistic.
Now, what might people listen to you all is if you came out with some statistics that said that the tempreture in (ooh...) St Louis had gone up by x % over x number of years.
People only care about this sort of stuff when it effects them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

See, this is where the Green lobby gets things wrong. No one cares about global tempreture. It's a meaningless statistic.
Now, what might people listen to you all is if you came out with some statistics that said that the tempreture in (ooh...) St Louis had gone up by x % over x number of years.
People only care about this sort of stuff when it effects them.

They're not wrong, they just need help presenting the information.

[John Dibble]

See, this is where the Green lobby gets things wrong. No one cares about global tempreture. It's a meaningless statistic.
Now, what might people listen to you all is if you came out with some statistics that said that the tempreture in (ooh...) St Louis had gone up by x % over x number of years.
People only care about this sort of stuff when it effects them.

They're not wrong, they just need help presenting the information.

No, he's absolutely correct that they are wrong. A change of .36 degrees on average is not going to get anyone's attention.

[Gabu]

See, this is where the Green lobby gets things wrong. No one cares about global tempreture. It's a meaningless statistic.
Now, what might people listen to you all is if you came out with some statistics that said that the tempreture in (ooh...) St Louis had gone up by x % over x number of years.
People only care about this sort of stuff when it effects them.

They're not wrong, they just need help presenting the information.

No, he's absolutely correct that they are wrong. A change of .36 degrees on average is not going to get anyone's attention.

Well, they're not wrong in what they say.  They're just right about something that nobody cares about.

[John Dibble]

See, this is where the Green lobby gets things wrong. No one cares about global tempreture. It's a meaningless statistic.
Now, what might people listen to you all is if you came out with some statistics that said that the tempreture in (ooh...) St Louis had gone up by x % over x number of years.
People only care about this sort of stuff when it effects them.

They're not wrong, they just need help presenting the information.

No, he's absolutely correct that they are wrong. A change of .36 degrees on average is not going to get anyone's attention.

Well, they're not wrong in what they say.  They're just right about something that nobody cares about.

Well, they are wrong in the sense that the Libertarian Party is wrong - they fudge up when it comes to their delivery of the message, ignoring political realities.

[ThadK]

Considering the big deal they're making about it, I'm honestly shocked that the average temperature has increased so little.

[Gabu]

See, this is where the Green lobby gets things wrong. No one cares about global tempreture. It's a meaningless statistic.
Now, what might people listen to you all is if you came out with some statistics that said that the tempreture in (ooh...) St Louis had gone up by x % over x number of years.
People only care about this sort of stuff when it effects them.

They're not wrong, they just need help presenting the information.

No, he's absolutely correct that they are wrong. A change of .36 degrees on average is not going to get anyone's attention.

Well, they're not wrong in what they say.  They're just right about something that nobody cares about.

Well, they are wrong in the sense that the Libertarian Party is wrong - they fudge up when it comes to their delivery of the message, ignoring political realities.

Ah, well, yes, they have the proverbial "it" wrong; I will certainly agree with that.

[YRABNNRM]

I was once watching stand up by Dennis Miller and one of the only funny parts was when he was discussing this issue and he talked about how it was only .36 degrees or whatever it was then(the special was a few years old) and how he doesn't plan for his kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kid because his fathers fathers fathers fathers fathers fathers fathers fathers father didn't plan for him or something like that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A couple of degrees change has much larger effects than the kneejerk response people think.

[J. J.]

A couple of degrees change has much larger effects than the kneejerk response people think.

Well, first of it's not "a couple of degrees," it's "0.2 degrees Celsius" according to the article, since the 1970's.

Second, the period between 1965 roughly 1979 was one of the coldest periods since the 1940's, as can be seen here:



http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

This is a bit like saying we have global warming because March is cooler than August in Philadelphia.  The article indicates that the weather balloon data was giving too high temperature readings in the 1970's and it was cooler, by 0.05-0.1 Degrees C than the data indicated.  If you use 1960 as a starting point, the average declines (roughly by a 0.05).

Now, the temperature is increasing, but that leads to a question, would we expect an increase like that to happen, naturally?  We can look at historical data and see that the temperature has increased from c. 1800, but we didn't have mass industrialization until after that.  Further, temperature decreased since circa 1550 and at one of its very low points.

We can look back 30 years and say, global temperatures were lower then now, but we can also look back from the mid 1970's to 1960 and say global temperatures were warmer then than they were at that time. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A couple of degrees change has much larger effects than the kneejerk response people think.

Well, first of it's not "a couple of degrees," it's "0.2 degrees Celsius" according to the article, since the 1970's.

Second, the period between 1965 roughly 1979 was one of the coldest periods since the 1940's, as can be seen here:



http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

This is a bit like saying we have global warming because March is cooler than August in Philadelphia.  The article indicates that the weather balloon data was giving too high temperature readings in the 1970's and it was cooler, by 0.05-0.1 Degrees C than the data indicated.  If you use 1960 as a starting point, the average declines (roughly by a 0.05).

Now, the temperature is increasing, but that leads to a question, would we expect an increase like that to happen, naturally?  We can look at historical data and see that the temperature has increased from c. 1800, but we didn't have mass industrialization until after that.  Further, temperature decreased since circa 1550 and at one of its very low points.

We can look back 30 years and say, global temperatures were lower then now, but we can also look back from the mid 1970's to 1960 and say global temperatures were warmer then than they were at that time. 

Fine, use that whole time period of that chart. That's 1 degree Fahrenheit in 150 years.

[J. J.]

A couple of degrees change has much larger effects than the kneejerk response people think.

Well, first of it's not "a couple of degrees," it's "0.2 degrees Celsius" according to the article, since the 1970's.

Second, the period between 1965 roughly 1979 was one of the coldest periods since the 1940's, as can be seen here:



http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

This is a bit like saying we have global warming because March is cooler than August in Philadelphia.  The article indicates that the weather balloon data was giving too high temperature readings in the 1970's and it was cooler, by 0.05-0.1 Degrees C than the data indicated.  If you use 1960 as a starting point, the average declines (roughly by a 0.05).

Now, the temperature is increasing, but that leads to a question, would we expect an increase like that to happen, naturally?  We can look at historical data and see that the temperature has increased from c. 1800, but we didn't have mass industrialization until after that.  Further, temperature decreased since circa 1550 and at one of its very low points.

We can look back 30 years and say, global temperatures were lower then now, but we can also look back from the mid 1970's to 1960 and say global temperatures were warmer then than they were at that time. 

Fine, use that whole time period of that chart. That's 1 degree Fahrenheit in 150 years.

Acreed, but as I've just pointed out, until about 1800, we were in an exceptionally cold period.  For example, from c. 1600 to c. 1815, the Thames froze of over; Dutch canals froze over for secveral months each winter during the same time.  Before that period, none of this happened, and it stopped happening after this period.  Now, we don't why it got colder nor why it starting warming.  Industrialization was just starting and wasn't huge factor.

Look at the period between 1902 and 1918.  We had massive industrialization, no polution control, and it got cooler.  Same thing in 1965 to 1979 (when scientists were talking about another glacial period).  Something is causing these things, but we don't know what.  The same factors, or lack thereof, could be triggering what's happened from 1985 to 1998.

Before we run out and try to stop global warming, we better understand why there is global warming.