Would you quit misrepresenting the data. The period isn't 11 years. The current period is 15 and probably still going to grow longer .. Your smoothing is fubar from the start.
It has, in fact, been on the rise for hundreds of years now. And no, I do not agree. Looking at the numbers we continue in a range that is within the continued rise. Since it is akin to a wave, at any particular point on the downward side of the wave it would look like we are in decline. But that is not taking the entire picture ionto account, and I expect an intelligent person would understand that.
I've seen some pretty bizarre behavior on this forum, but you take the cake. The dataset you yourself linked to shows a decline in solar activity over the past 30 years. And you continue to live in your own dreamworld where you can invent your own facts out of whole cloth. You're a flat-out liar, a teller of tales, and a dishonest person. There's no other way to put it. And I would expect an intelligent person to understand that by smoothing the data, the cyclical noise is eliminated, which also eliminates your feeble objection. Starting from cycle bottom to cycle bottom, over the last 3 cycles (32 years), solar activity has declined by about 0.2 Watts per square meter. THAT'S AFTER TAKING YOUR PATHETIC OBJECTION into account. I would expect an honest and intelligent person to understand that, but I no longer expect it of "Dishonest Abe".
I would expect the whole atmosphere to warm. Why is the stratosphere cooling if there is "increasing Solar input"?
Good point. With solar warming, we would expect the following: 1. Whole atmosphere should be warming, including the stratosphere. It's not. 2. Days should be warming faster than nights. They're not. 3. Summers should be warming faster than winters. They're not. Every single expectation we have from a Sun-warmed earth is being violated in the current warming episode. An intelligent person would draw an intelligent conclusion from that.
Like I said before, we may be experiencing the "tipping point" to the wave. At some point it reaches its highest point and then heads back down... So yes, an intelligent person may conclude that we have begun the downward slope, and hope we don't go so low as to cause another Ice Age. Because, as any intelligent person would know, Humans adapt to higher temperatures much better than they do with cooler ones.
The Sun goes up and down. El Niño goes up and down. But CO2 has been going only up, up, up since the industrial revolution. The current warming will continue until CO2 comes back down. When will that be? No, an intelligent person would conclude that since the Sun isn't responsible for the current warming, we're not headed back down at all. Can you guarantee that the same is true for all the species you eat? I didn't think so.
No an intelligent person does not expect the temperature to continue to rise when the heat has been turned down The Solar output is down - has been for years - admittedly it seems to be ramping up again - in which case I expect to see some NASTY heat waves But as for humans adapting to heat better than cold - have you seen the death tolls from heat waves?? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-billion-of-economic-output-in-heat-wave.html Actually the Russian heat wave ended up killing over 50,000 Take a look at these statistics - worst blizzard - Iran 1972 - 4,000 people dead Worst Heat wave Russia 2010 56,000 people dead The European heat wave in 2003 was responsible for 40,000 deaths The death toll from heat waves is on average 10 times that of Blizzards Then we have Famine - one of the greatest causes of deaths known Don't be fooled by the denialist sites telling you Co2 is good for plants The weather is CHANGING which is why it is called climate change - and guess what? Farmers rely on the climate to grow crops. If the temperature rises there is more evaporation which means we need more water to keep the crops growing - good if there is more rainfall and not this drought/flood cycle we have been seeing
You understand that if the World gets cooler, it will make more and more land unable to sustain crops, right? You are showing me tens of thousands of deaths. But no food for Billions will result in millions and billions dead. You understand that, right?
I don't need a website to tell me this, I KNOW that plants need CO2 just like we need oxygen. Only an idiot would think CO2 isn't good for plants. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...-greening-continues-did-we-cause-it/#more-481 Two articles have appeared recently in the scientific literature with results that may make us reconsider this entire affair. The first appears in the Journal of Geographical Sciences dealing with worldwide trends in the vigor of vegetation since the early 1980sthe results may surprise you, but they did not surprise us given all that has been written on this subject and certainly covered at World Climate Report. Three Chinese scientists (all with the last name of Liu) used satellite data to detect changes occurring in vegetation throughout the world. Rather than use the popular satellite-based Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Liu et al. (a.k.a., Liu3) decided to use the Leaf Area Index (LAI). The scientists explain LAI, defined as half the total leaf area per unit ground, is directly linked to vegetation activities and comparable among different ecosystems. It has removed the effects of spectral response, illumination and orbit drift during data acquisition. It should be better, at least theoretically, than NDVI as the indicator of vegetation status. We will certainly trust their judgment. As seen in their figure below (Figure1), the red colors absolutely dominate indicating an increase in vegetation status! Liu et al. declare: Results show that, over the past 26 years, LAI has generally increased at a rate of 0.0013 per year around the globe. The strongest increasing trend is around 0.0032 per year in the middle and northern high latitudes (north of 30°N). LAI has prominently increased in Europe, Siberia, Indian Peninsula, America and south Canada, South region of Sahara, southwest corner of Australia and Kgalagadi Basin; while noticeably decreased in Southeast Asia, southeastern China, central Africa, central and southern South America and arctic areas in North America. In commenting on the upward trend in LAI in the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemispheric, the trio states The growth of the vegetation in these middle and high latitude areas is mainly limited by temperature. Many studies correlating NDVI with land surface temperature indicate warming might be the most important factor accounting for the LAI increase in this area. Warming, causes longer active growing season length and higher growth magnitude, therefore leads to increase in LAI in this area. We accept their findingswe now believe that warming has been beneficial for vegetation throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere. As we look at the map above, we see red throughout many low latitude areas as well. The gloom and doomers of the climate change issue are not going to be happy with such positive results. Although not discussed in the Liu et al. paper, we cannot help but wonder what role elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations may have played in stimulating plant growth in so many areas of the world? Feel free to examine all of our essays reporting on the biological benefits of elevated CO2, let alone the benefits of warming. Few people would argue that the planet has warmed to some extent over the past three decades, and many people feel that humans caused at least some part of this warming through their consumption of fossil fuels. Well, hold the fort because our second featured article does not arrive at that conclusion whatsoever. The article was written by two scientists from Taiwan and was published recently in Atmospheric Science Letters. Lo and Hsu begin stating: The global mean temperature has been rising more abruptly over the past 30 years, compared with that in the previous 50100 years. This recent warming has occurred in most areas on Earth, becoming a truly global phenomenon. The sudden acceleration of warming, which is particularly evident in the winter Northern Hemisphere (NH), can be linked with the observation of widespread abrupt changes in the late 1980s. The nature of the late 1980s warming and its relationship with the dominant teleconnection patterns such as the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) are explored in this study. We knew we would like thisnothing better than scientists explaining warming with teleconnections related things that operate largely without any association to the buildup of greenhouse gases. The authors conducted sophisticated research with climate models and greenhouse gas scenarios developed by the United Nations IPCC group. They found that warming in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere was highly related to the two teleconnections, and it led them to conclude (hold your breath) that their results do not support the scenario that the emerging influence of the AO-like pattern in the late 1980s can be attributed to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Indeed, they conclude that what we are seeing can be attributed to natural variability. OK. The earth warmed over the past 30 years. We agree (although that has largely slowed down or even stopped in the past 10 years). Atmospheric CO2 has increased. We agree. The rise in CO2 caused the warmingnot according to Lo and Hsu. The warming caused vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere to thriveLiu et al. think so. You get the messagewarming and elevated CO2 are not combining to destroy the planets vegetation. Quite to the contrary, they may be a blessing!
How to tell a valid source from Internet Elephant dung a) check out the "about us" section - if it has statements like it has an agenda - and is likely to have so much spin we could use it to cool the entire atmosphere b) check out WHO is behind the website - if it is one of the known Exxon recipients http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Balling c) And even more importantly - check out if the content is referenced - in this case it is however distinct dead rat smell arises when one sees that there are only 2 cited articles in a field with thousands of research papers d) Ask yourself if the content of the piece matches the cited research - in this case not really the study by Lui et al itself talks of human influence on outcome as well as the impact of ENSO on vegetation growth patterns they do not mention co2 http://www.springerlink.com/content/y214469777l4678k/ The second paper seems to be an even worse "fit" and even the quoted part in the website looks like they had to use more stretch than a rubber factory to get to even look remotely like it might be connected It is called "cherry picking" and is dishonest
You understand that if the World gets warmer, it will make more and more land unable to sustain crops, right? Do you know what the word "evaporation" means? Look it up. It is a function of heat.
Just for completeness I did a google scholar search for CO2 plant growth and got over 900,000 results - now a large percentage of that will not closely match the search criteria but hey! that still leaves tons to choose from - so let us look at some of these results 1) overall got better crops (maize and cotton) in CO2 but conclude http://www.springerlink.com/content/h431jn16p0k73256/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00680.x/full but look yourself and don't take my word or anyone else's for it
I never thought I would see the end of the Soviet Union, in my lifetime... Careful what you wish for. We may in fact be witnessing the "tipping point" as we type. We don't know for sure. And I am suggesting that we are better able, as a species, to handle increasing temperatures than we are decreasing ones...
Svensmark's hypothesis has been falsified so many times it's not even worth my time to debunk. Go read the literature.
