Is global warming still a problem? Maybe not.

In 2005, when Al Gore produced his film and the accompaning book of the same title, An Inconvienent Truth, neither he nor any of the scientists who were working on climate issues at the time could have predicted the following two events:

1. That the Sun’s activity would drop to low levels not known since the mid 20th Century.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1980/to:2010/plot/pmod/from:1980/to:2010/trend 

2. That we would be facing a massive economic recession that would affect most of the world.

The former has made global warming much less of a problem, at least for now.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2010/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2010/trend

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2005/to:2010/plot/rss/from:2005/to:2010/trend

While the latter has caused a slowdown in industrial output, the very thing that was the primary cause of global warming prior to 2005. Thus I have decided that it would be safe and prudent to put climate change on the backburner for a few years or so and concentrate on reviving our economy. Once we have made our economy strong again, and once we find solar activity rising once again, we can and MUST resume the focus on solving the global warming problem.

In the meantime, Al Gore, please find a new cause to champion. This one has run its course!

About these ads

9 thoughts on “Is global warming still a problem? Maybe not.

  1. since you took the time to troll a completely unrelated thread on Skepchick I figured one of us would eventually look at your link. If the solar activity is your only scientific argument you need to do better than that, the science has shown that man made greenhouse gasses have had an enormous effect compared to minor fluctuations due to the sun.

    http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

    It appears that you have confused your denialism with skepticism, global warming is a fact ignoring it because of your economic ideology isn’t critical thinking and never will be.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/09/im-skeptical-of-denialism/

    • Northernskeptic, you are talking to the wrong person. Try reading my earlier blog entries on global warming to see what I REALLY think. As a skeptic, I am willing to change my position based on the evidence and take positions based ONLY on the evidence. Denialists never do change their minds, and indeed they are often willing to LIE to support their presuppositions. They claim, for example, that global warming stopped in 1998, which is absurd because the temperature spike that occured that year was the result of a regional and temporary event, El Nino, that had nothing to do with global warming. Global warming really didn’t stop until 2006, and even now, thanks to the higher CO2 levels, we are nowhere near the low levels were were at in the Little Ice Age, even while the solar activity has dropped to its lowest level by far in many decades.

      I had said, “Once we have made our economy strong again, and once we find solar activity rising once again, we can and MUST resume the focus on solving the global warming problem.” If I had been denialist, I would have said, “There is no global warming problem!” Big difference!

      • Your arguments against addressing the real damage being caused by greenhouse gasses are based upon your dislike of Al Gore and a deliberate over inflation of the effect of the solar activity cycle. Combined with your economic ideology you certainly do fit the role of a denier by falling for the unsupported belief we can just ignore the environment until some arbitrary time when the economy is declared recovered. Look around we have depleted much of the North American oil supply that alone should be obvious, business as usual will not fix anything the time for action is now.

        oh and do the rest of us a favour while you are ignoring real science please stop referring to yourself as a skeptic.

  2. Dale I did call you a denier this is true(not specifically a global warming denier), because you are denying science in favour of your ideology. I understand that this is a distinction you are having a hard time with, so try and stay with me here you have chosen to pick and choose which science to accept to make your weak rant, by discarding that which contradicts your plan you are denying.

    I’ll also point out that editing my last comment only shows a weakness on your part. You clearly did not anticipate the need to defend your position (which you still have failed to do) but instead have resorted to a persecution type of mentality.

    so tell me why must we ignore the problem of CO2 emissions despite the strong evidence linking them to global climate change? why should we ignore the ice-cores that clearly show the increase in such gasses and global temperatures have not been as high as they have been since human intervention? where is the scientific community saying that it is ok to ignore emissions in favour of economic growth?

    I wouldn’t hold my breath for an apology as I don’t see there is anything that I’ve said that would warrant one.

    • Dale I did call you a denier this is true(not specifically a global warming denier), because you are denying science in favour of your ideology.

      If that is true, please specify at what point I actually denied any real science, and what ideology I am supposed to be promoting.

      I understand that this is a distinction you are having a hard time with, so try and stay with me here you have chosen to pick and choose which science to accept to make your weak rant, by discarding that which contradicts your plan you are denying.

      And now you are being condescending. Again, what am I picking and choosing? Go through ALL my previous blog entries dealing with global warming before you make any more accusations you cannot support.

      I’ll also point out that editing my last comment only shows a weakness on your part. You clearly did not anticipate the need to defend your position (which you still have failed to do) but instead have resorted to a persecution type of mentality.

      Attempts to read my mind don’t impress me. Also, you are the only one making assertions that seem to need defending, in the form of attacks on me. I thought I explained my position well enough in the blog entry above. Of course, extremists will always have a problem with people who do not blindly follow the party line and recommend caution and moderation regarding a policy strongly favored by a great many people.

      so tell me why must we ignore the problem of CO2 emissions despite the strong evidence linking them to global climate change? why should we ignore the ice-cores that clearly show the increase in such gasses and global temperatures have not been as high as they have been since human intervention? where is the scientific community saying that it is ok to ignore emissions in favour of economic growth?

      Strawman-type fallacy. Suggesting that action against global warming be delayed a few years, and explaining exactly why, is nowhere near the same as saying any evidence for global warming should be ignored forever. As for economic growth being a higher priority right now, consider that some people, being unemployed and impoverished, are far less likely to think about long-term and global issues like climate change. Give such people jobs with sufficient income to be better off, and then they will be more likely to listen to whatever solutions we may offer them to stop the global warming. It’s human nature. Failing to take that into account will doom any idealistic cause, however scientifically valid.

      I wouldn’t hold my breath for an apology as I don’t see there is anything that I’ve said that would warrant one.

      Perhaps because you are too egotistical to offer me one. That is typical of trolls with a lame ax to grind and is thus why I will approve no further comments from you until you apologize. And finally, here is a blog entry I made long ago in reference to others, but it seems to fit you too.

      http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2007/07/22/assuming-the-worst-of-others/

  3. Dale,

    I believe you have a few misconceptions here:
    - CO2 is still the primary cause of global warming (why do you think it stopped to be so in 2005?) and I don’t even see any significant change in the trend of CO2
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000/to:2010
    (though that is only eyeballed, and not analyzed).
    - Global warming did not stop in 2006. I am only guessing (because you did not explain why you think it stopped), but me thinks you link to the 2005-2010 plot as a proof of this. A five (or thereabouts) year period is much too short to establish a trend in global climate. There is too much noise.

    So your statement that “global warming [is] much less of a problem” is unfounded and we still will have to take action now.
    BTW. do you really, honestly think that looking at a sunspot graph, a short term temperature series and a unquantified statement like “massive economic recession” is sufficient to reach your conclusion (i.e. “that it would be safe and prudent to put climate change on the backburner for a few years”)?
    (That’s a genuine question).

    Cheers,
    Frank

    • Perhaps you are right, Frank, but at least I have a willingness to question my previously held conclusions and revise them in the light of the latest evidence, unlike global warming denialists for whom conclusions are unalterable and evidence can only be one-sided.

      “Better safe than sorry” is indeed a good policy to follow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s