Who gets to decide what level is alarming? See, I don't need to use qualifiers.
Catastrophic global warming is the whole point of the global warming debate! If there is no catastrophic global warming, we don't need to spend billions on "climate protection". In the past there have been thousands of global warming trends that were faster and bigger. Those weren't catastrophic.
If the observed amount of warming is significant or not is an entirely different matter, I am merely pointing out that it is incorrect to state that there is a cooling trend.
There are an infinite amount of cooling trends in the temperature records. It all depends on the time frame one chooses. For the last ten years there is a cooling trend in the UAH temperature record, while the CO2 part in the air is steadily growing.
Another example is the longest temperature record that I know of. It shows a cooling trend of about minus -6 degrees Celsius over 550 million years:
All your temperature records are from Nasa. Nasa changes old data mostly down and doesn't explain why. The result is a warming trend that isn't in the original data. I don't believe their temperature record anymore!
I use the temperature record of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The temperature is measured by satellites. Therefore there is no heat island effect that distorts the data.
In addition it is the only record that is confirmed by weather balloons measurements, an independent record.
This is a site, which shows the most used temperature records with its sources:
But most importantly, none of the temperature shows an alarming rise in the global temperature. Neither the speed nor the magnitude of the temperature change is unique in the climate history of the earth. On the contrary it is a normal change.
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional
works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported
in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary
atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting
with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law
of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost
all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for
granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientic foundation. In
this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are
clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming
phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there
are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the
frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a
radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to
zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified."
From the study: "Falsification Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics"
by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
In any case, an island like the one in the video is a poor choice as a benchmark because mean sea level varies across the Pacific by as much as 60cm at any given time due to atmospheric effects.
In this case, he is talking about the Maldives and not an island! And the seal level is dropping around the Maldives.
Slashdot Mirror
Who gets to decide what level is alarming? See, I don't need to use qualifiers.
Catastrophic global warming is the whole point of the global warming debate! If there is no catastrophic global warming, we don't need to spend billions on "climate protection". In the past there have been thousands of global warming trends that were faster and bigger. Those weren't catastrophic.
If the observed amount of warming is significant or not is an entirely different matter, I am merely pointing out that it is incorrect to state that there is a cooling trend.
There are an infinite amount of cooling trends in the temperature records. It all depends on the time frame one chooses. For the last ten years there is a cooling trend in the UAH temperature record, while the CO2 part in the air is steadily growing.
Another example is the longest temperature record that I know of. It shows a cooling trend of about minus -6 degrees Celsius over 550 million years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
Venus is closer to the sun and has a denser athmosphere than our earth.
"Seasons result from the yearly revolution of the Earth around the Sun and the tilt of the Earth's axis relative to the plane of revolution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
I use the temperature record of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The temperature is measured by satellites. Therefore there is no heat island effect that distorts the data.
In addition it is the only record that is confirmed by weather balloons measurements, an independent record.
This is a site, which shows the most used temperature records with its sources:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#UAH%20MSU
But most importantly, none of the temperature shows an alarming rise in the global temperature. Neither the speed nor the magnitude of the temperature change is unique in the climate history of the earth. On the contrary it is a normal change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/DEFINITIVE_DEATHKNELL_to_CLIMATE_ALARMISM.pdf
From the study: "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
Here is the science: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MornerEtAl2004.pdf
Here is the science to the falling sea level around the maldives: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MornerEtAl2004.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk
In any case, an island like the one in the video is a poor choice as a benchmark because mean sea level varies across the Pacific by as much as 60cm at any given time due to atmospheric effects.
In this case, he is talking about the Maldives and not an island! And the seal level is dropping around the Maldives.