One picture is worth 1100 years.
I found this in a political argument in alt.music.amplifiers of all places. Global warming? Look at the graph and tell me what you think.
Here’s another graph from the same site.
One picture is worth 1100 years.
I found this in a political argument in alt.music.amplifiers of all places. Global warming? Look at the graph and tell me what you think.
Here’s another graph from the same site.
4 Comments
I was actually planning on posting something about global climate change today. Stay tuned…
SF writer Neal Asher (link to his Blog from my list o' links) is a huge supporter of the anti (growing) global warming crowd to which I belong to that same camp. Now this is just my opinion but I agree that gw is nothing more then natural earth cycles. If anything the planet is cooling down and we're heading (eventually) into another ice age. Sure we can become better stewards of our environment and all but to say that gw is totally man made is getting silly now.
Enough is enough.
Jim,
I think that we have to have a friendly disagreement on this. The problem is that the evidence is not as hard as I would like, so anything I say is just my opinion. In fact, it was a comment on your blog that I disagreed with that spurred me to write this entry.
This is my blog so I can state my opinion ;^)
Computer models show that the earth goes through cycles.
There is a cool (actually cool then warm then cool) graph at:
http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html
I love those eu.org graphs. They are very pretty and very clear.
We are at the top of a warm cycle. That is the coarse data that your and Neal are talking about. If we consider this trend, we might be seeing a gradual increase in global warmth. We are near the top of the warm cycle and the temperature is mostly flat.
This flat global temperature average can be seen in the one graph going back about 1000 years. What is disturbing is the spike at the end.
I firmly believe that this local spike is not part of the overall cycle. The solar cycle has nothing to do with it. The precession of the equinoxes that helps to explain the larger cycle of ice and warm ages does not explain it.
It appears obvious to most climatologists that it is the result of increased CO2 levels.
The global warming that climatologists are warning about is not the larger cycle. It is an immediate, dramatic, dangerous change, which is not well understood.
I, for one, have no problem pointing my finger at CO2 emissions from human activity. I am not a climatologist, although I believe that most of them think that the spike is significant and dangerous.
I don’t like issues like survival of the planet to be confuse with politics. I think that part of this problem is that the science has become a political issue when it has no place in politics.
I just read an excellent article by Orson Scott Card on Global Warming and Climate Change on his website. From Neal Asher's site, enjoy:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html