For one thing, I would conclude that this is 2010. You cite data from 2008, including the incredibly obvious idea that if you start with the hottest year in a period, 1998, then you will see a "cooling trend" for subsequent years, at least until that record is exceeded. To get the latest numbers, go to Roy Spencer's site and look at the graph. It is current to April of THIS year.
So, what? Has global warming come back with a vengeance since 2008? I think that's obfuscation, of the most obvious kind. According to rekees4300, 2005 was the hottest year on record, but, if the Earth is "warming", why would it also, at the same time, be cooling? It's either one, or the other. Or, does the temperatue <gasp!> fluctuate?!
For some reason, few of the people who argue against global warming seem to dispute that CO2 levels are rising. To say that there is no relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures simply ignores the physics of the situation.
I like CO2. So do my trees. According to sources, so do the rainforests. More CO2, please!
It is not unreasonable to suggest that CO2 levels are increasing due to global warming because, indeed, the solubility of CO2 in water goes down with increases in temperature, and the great CO2 sink of the oceans gives up CO2 with warming.
So, global warming isn't
caused by greenhouse gases, but, instead, greenhouse gases are
caused by global warming? Are you sure that's the direction you want to go? Just to be sure, I'm understanding you to say that global warming is causing an increase in greenhouse gases (specifically, CO2), not that increased CO2 is the cause of global warming. Is that correct? Is that really what you're saying?
However, if you wish to also say that the earth is actually cooling, how do you then explain the increasing CO2 levels?
I don't say that the Earth is cooling. NASA does. Ask them. Of course, I never took the great intellectual leap into the chasm that leads one to believe that global warming causes an increase in greenhouse gases. I was always told it was the other way around. Now, apparently, since we wouldn't buy the "greenhouse gases cause global warming" rhetoric, we're being sold the "global warming causes greenhouse gases" tale. We should just call it "climate change", so we can blame mankind and collect royalties for whatever the weather decides to do!
If global warming is the catalyst for a catastrophic increase in greenhouse gases, as opposed to greenhouse gases causing global warming, then there is nothing we can do, since all of our economy-destroying efforts are directed towards reducing the production of greenhouse gases, which is futile against the power of the Earth and Sun. We're doomed! Doomed, I say!
Certainly it cannot be due to man's activities because....well, just because!
You mean, despite the fact that, in the US, alone, air pollution is down 41% since 1990, that could have absolutely no effect? If that's the case, then there is nothing we can do, and we're all doomed. But, if reducing the pollution level does not reduce temperatures, then why does increasing pollution levels increase temperatures? It makes no sense. Why should we buy electric cars (futile, in itself, but go ahead and do it, if you like), recycle plastics and buy more expensive, yet inferior, "green" products, since it's not the greenhouse gases that are heating the Earth; it's the self-warming Earth that's creating the greenhouse gases? It seems we've suffered a paradigm shift in "green" rhetoric. :confused2:
So, lets just say that there is no relationship between global temperatures and CO2 levels, even though that is clearly incorrect. And lets also drag up old arguments that never really went anywhere but on the many, many web sites dedicated to debunking global warming.
But, if it's the heat that's causing the increased CO2 levels, then what's causing the heat (which appears to have subsided, according to Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, and RSS)? If it's not the greenhouse gases causing the Earth to warm, then it's not the fault of mankind.
What all this mainly proves is that you can find anything on the web, and that the people who post anti-GW stuff sure are prolific, even though they lack originality. But then again, you can also find anything you might want to know about Paris Hilton on the web, and some of it might even be true. Lots of hits on the web do not make an argument for "truth".
Truth lacks the pinache often ascribed to fiction. You're surprised?
Again, unless you go to the original source for data, you are getting someone's interpretation. Now, even if you get the original data, it has been "interpreted" by the author, but at least you are one step closer to real data.
Of course, if you go to the global warming "scientists", you know you'll get lied to. They've already proven it, when the data they'd collected couldn't prove global warming.
So, all that's left to us is to go outside, and see if it really is "warmer". I'll still never understand how a 1.2 degree F increase in temperature results in global catastrophe, when it was at least 2 degrees warmer, yesterday, and I survived.
Alarmism, for alarmism's sake, I suppose?
