Walter Dnes wrote: Draw a graph of the temperature for the 10-year period 1998..2007. Which way is the slope pointing?

The slope is pointing down, indicating that the global temperature is cooling.

Now...

Select any year other than 1998 and draw a graph of the nine year trend. Or select any year before 1998 and draw a graph through to 2007. The slope is pointing up, indicating that the global temperature is heating.

The fact that 1998 was an anomalous year does not change the long term trend.

In order to see what's 'normal' we have to look at the earth's climate over billions of years. A couple of years, a couple of hundred years or even a couple of thousand years are meaningless..

In the big picture, our climate is abnormally cold. It's much colder than it has been in the past.. We're coming out of a period where we had four ice ages back to back. Look at the LONG TERM climate graph that's in the web site link below. Use THIS graph, if you want to try extrapolate climate trends.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Does it really matter whether global warming is man-made or natural? If it looks like changing temperatures are going to affect life as we know it, shouldn't we try to do something about it?

Is there an argument about whether the current temperature patterns are doing any damage or not?

Mexicanuck, according to Professor Carter's lecture, there is no long term global warming trend that can be established. It is within normal parameters given the earth's lifecycle.

asif9t9, if the globe is warming primarily due to naturally occurring events or components, reduced GWG emissions by mankind won't change the outcome IMO. And if is would, then ALL countries need to get on the train. In the meantime, i quite agree with Professor Carter for having the guts to suggest that we might spend the same money elsewhere to alleviate some of mankind's problems.

Does it really matter whether global warming is man-made or natural?

Yes. If we are the cause, then there IS something that we can do. If we are not the cause, then we are wasting all of our resources on the wrong thing. If we are not the cause, we need to be stockpiling food stuffs, water, fuel and MANY other resurces. This is NOT what we are doing.

If it looks like changing temperatures are going to affect life as we know it, shouldn't we try to do something about it?

If we did it, we can undo it. However, due to the undeniable fact that it has been, historically, much colder and MUCH hotter than it is now and without our actions being any influence, it is glaringly obvious that the earth is going to do what it wishes and if we were to attempt to teraform our planet, it would very likely cause more problems than what it would solve. As an example of what happens when we interfere in the preexisting natural balance/ebb and flow, look at what has happened with the release of certain non-indigenous animals and insects into environments in an effort to control other species or in an effort to add biodiversity to an otherwise untouched area (Rabbits in Australia).

Is there an argument about whether the current temperature patterns are doing any damage or not?

Oh, there are arguments but unfortunately they are being used as justification to declare all of this as the fault of humans. The reality is that there will obviously be some change in the numbers within each species that is directly related to their individual ability to adapt to changes in the climate.

As a matter of historical/geological record/fact, all of the MASSIVE temperature changes in the 100s of millons of years have all collectively failed to snuff out life on earth. To that, there are so many species on earth today, ologists are constantly finding new ones and at the same time, occasionally stumbling on those that were thought to be extinct (Coelocanths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelocanth)).

My point above being that even with the loss of species from major natural events and climate changes, there still remains massively diverse life on this planet.

jwt873 wrote: In order to see what's 'normal' we have to look at the earth's climate over billions of years. A couple of years, a couple of hundred years or even a couple of thousand years are meaningless..
I agree. If what you are interested in is the absolute temperatures and not the implications for various life forms.

But when we discuss climate change, most people are interested in preserving climates in which human civilization, culture and populations are likely to remain viable. They want a sense of whether their grandchildren will be able to live in a manner similar to them or whether those grandchildren will be beset by California-Arizona like droughts in British Columbia, Bangladeshi-like typhoons in California, or Cuba-like hurricanes in Newfoundland. They want to know whether continents will experience massive cross-border migrations due to floods and famines, resulting in wars as some governments enforce borders and others ignore them.

Not many people care whether mammalian life forms will die off in a thousand years and giant lizzards will rule the earth for a million years. Lots of people care about whether their young children of today will experience climate-change induced chaos.

The slope is pointing down, indicating that the global temperature is cooling.

Now...

Select any year other than 1998 and draw a graph of the nine year trend. Or select any year before 1998 and draw a graph through to 2007. The slope is pointing up, indicating that the global temperature is heating.

The fact that 1998 was an anomalous year does not change the long term trend.
Strange, I don't recall Al Gore or IPCC advocating throwing out 1998 from the graph when they were running around screaming that the sky was falling.

BTW, does Anomalous == Incovenient ?

Nanuuk wrote: according to Professor Carter's lecture, there is no long term global warming trend that can be established. It is within normal parameters given the earth's lifecycle.
Would this be the same Bob Carter who wrote in 2002,

"REGIONAL threats to the GBR (Great Barrier Reef) from water turbidity, sediment runoff, urban, tourist or agrichemical pollution, crown of thorns outbreaks, wonky holes and meteorite impacts are far field possibilities akin to the risks of flying or less. On the other hand, to ignore climate and sea-level change as long-term factors to be considered as part of reef management would be the same as ignoring the car coming down the road."? (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1183)

So what's your point, Mexicanuck?

Your comment was that Carter says, "...there is no long term global warming trend...".

In the quote I provided Carter acknowledges, "...to ignore climate and sea-level change as long-term factors to be considered..." (He then went on to compare adults ignoring climate change to a child ignoring a car and crossing the road in front of it.)

I thought the point was obvious and that it would be insulting to point it out.

The person whom you say does not acknowledge a long term warming trend acknowledged it in 2002 by recognizing climate change and the attendant rise in sea-level as long-term factors.

Unless perhaps he was referring to a long-term cooling and lowering sea level. :)

Well, review the clips for yourself. Perhaps, I paraphrased him incorrectly. Or perhaps he has come to a different conclusion since 2002. Afterall, I'm told good scientists keep on examining data and testing theories!