Not that anyone but a denier or two believed that some microscopic revision in a few years of temperature data meant the theory of human-caused global warming was even slightly undercut -- but progressives need to know all the rebuttals. I emailed Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate about this -- I'm sure I wasn't alone -- and he put together a very nice debunking post.
As Gavin writes, "there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake." Sad.
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 3:35 am
13 Aug 2007
Tim Lambert is funny on this.
As usual. See here and here.
grist.org
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:56 am
13 Aug 2007
Deeply felt wish
"...there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake."
Really nothing wrong with the wish. It would make me very happy for global warming to turn out just to be a statistical quirk or mistake. Phasing out fossil fuels would still be important, but the deadline would not be quite so urgent. What is wrong is mistaking the wish for the reality...
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:11 am
13 Aug 2007
MediaMatters
No one will be surprised to hear that Fox News has been dramatically misrepresenting this development.
grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:29 am
13 Aug 2007
Well that figures
Thats not global temperatures.
It's only US temperatures.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 6:05 am
13 Aug 2007
year of records
Meanwhile, January and April 2007 were the warmest since records began in 1880. The North Pole is disappearing before our eyes in real time. India had double the normal number of monsoon storms, causing the worst flood in decades that has killed hundreds and displaced millions. Record-breaking temperatures in southern Europe killed hundreds, and record heat and rainfall in the UK wreaked havoc.
This article summed it up: Across Globe, Extremes of Heat and Rain
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 6:16 am
13 Aug 2007
wish i could correct my own posts
That first link about January and April should have been to this press release.
Hey, this is "cool." The UN has a new Climate Change portal: http://www.un.org/climatechange/
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 6:26 am
13 Aug 2007
Bowery Boys Didn't Drive no SUV
Ever see those 1934 era movies in black and white.
What do you remember?
That's right, everyone was POOR!
It was the GREAT DEPRESSION
As in no cars, no money, no heat.
A low point for CO2...yet the 1930s are as hot as the go-go years of CO2 like the 90s.
Why aren't people answering this critical question???????
John Bailo
Supratext:
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:28 am
13 Aug 2007
Why?
Because it's global warming.
Not local warming.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 6:49 am
13 Aug 2007
1934: A Year That Will Live in Infamy !!!
The Great Depression was a worldwide nadir in industrial production -- yet it is the record holder for temperature...along with it's sister years in the 1930s.
CO2 goes down...temperature goes up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
John Bailo
Supratext:
Permalink
darthschmoo Posted 9:38 am
15 Aug 2007
Oh, jabailo...
Let's set aside your confusion about the difference beetween global temperatures and continental U.S. temperatures for a moment. Instead, let's focus on your confusion about the difference between atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and yearly production of CO2.
Let us use the analogy of a retirement account. During the roaring twenties, we were socking it away like mad. But in the thirties, we had very little money to put into the account. Yet every time we went to the bank to deposit the nickel we scraped together that week for retirement, the cashier told us that our balance was higher than it had ever been.
Lunacy! If the account is highest when we put the least money into it, then clearly there is no link between putting money into the account and the account balance.
If every human and every artifice of industry was removed from the planet right now, it would take millennia for CO2 to recede back to pre-industrial levels. In fact, it would probably take a century just for the world to stop warming, since the world isn't yet in thermal equilibrium given the CO2 already present.
There is too much inertia in the system for a hiccup like the Great Depression to fundamentally alter the overall picture. If you think you're asking a silver bullet of a question here, then you really don't understand the science you're trying to undermine.
If you want my vision of the future, imagine a woman in army boots and a Che Guevara t-shirt stamping on Sam Walton's face -- forever.
Permalink