Is Global Warming a fraud?

Question

Let's see what the actual experts have to say:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22945

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

How very enlightening. Common sense for teh win.

Answer 1

Global average surface temperatures pushed 2005 into a virtual tie with 1998 as the hottest year on record.[1] For people living in the Northern Hemisphere—most of the world's population—2005 was the hottest year on record since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable instrumental records were available worldwide.

Scientists claim final proof of global warming

Source: Copyright 2004, Times (UK)
Date: May 6, 2004
Byline: Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent





POWERFUL evidence for global warming has been discovered by scientists funded by the US Government, demolishing the chief argument of sceptics who deny that the phenomenon is real.

A new analysis of satellite data has revealed that temperatures in a critical part of the atmosphere are rising much faster than previously thought, strengthening the scientific consensus that the world is warming at an unnatural rate.

The discovery resolves one of the most contentious anomalies in climate science, which has often been invoked by the Bush Administration to question whether man-made global warming is happening.

While it is generally accepted that surface temperatures are increasing by an average of 0.17C (0.31F) per decade, satellites have been unable to detect a parallel trend in the troposphere — the lowest level of the atmosphere, extending 7.5 miles above the ground, in which most weather occurs.

This lack of tropospheric warming has long puzzled scientists, as it is predicted by all the major models of climate change. It has also been seized on by a small but vocal minority of scientists, who have used it to raise doubts about whether global temperatures are rising at all. The enigma, however, has been explained by a team led by Qiang Fu, of the University of Washington in Seattle.

His research reveals that the troposphere is warming almost precisely as the models predict it should: by about 0.2C (0.4F) per decade. Satellites have not previously detected the trend as they have been confused by colder temperatures in the atmospheric layer above.

The findings, details of which are published today in the journal Nature, provide one of the final pieces of proof that global warming is taking place, and that it is a human-induced phenomenon.

Sceptics have often argued that if temperatures are rising at all, this is down to natural variation in the climate as the world emerges from a “little Ice Age”. The tropospheric trend, however, is precisely what scientists would expect to see if man-made emissions of greenhouse gases were causing it to heat up.

“I think this could convince not just scientists but the public as well,” Dr Fu said.

Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, said: “It will become that much harder for people to claim that the world isn’t warming and that the warming isn’t caused by greenhouse-gas emissions.”

In their study, the Washington team examined atmospheric temperature data collected between January 1979 and December 2001 from satellites operated by the US National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration.

These satellites used instruments known as microwave-sounding units to measure microwave radiation emitted by oxygen molecules, and thus to calculate the temperature.

The raw data for the troposphere, as measured by the instruments’ channel 2 setting, showed no pronounced warming trend.

Dr Fu realised, however, that about a fifth of the signal picked up on channel 2 in fact originated in the stratosphere — the higher level of the atmosphere between 10km and 50km above the Earth’s surface. This had skewed the data, as the stratosphere is known to be cooling rapidly.

“Because of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases, the stratosphere is cooling about five times faster than the troposphere is warming, so the channel 2 measurement by itself provided us with little information on the temperature trend in the lower atmosphere,” Dr Fu said.

His team then used measurements from weather balloons and from another channel on the microwave units to determine precisely how much of the channel 2 signal was coming from the stratosphere.

Once this stratospheric error was eliminated, the remaining data showed that the troposphere had indeed been warming, by about 0.2C (0.4F) a decade.

“This tells us very clearly what the lower atmosphere temperature trend is, and the trend is very similar to what is happening at the surface,” Dr Fu said.

The new tropospheric data does not suggest that the pace of global warming is increasing or decreasing. The research was funded by the US Government, through the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and Nasa.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global temperatures will rise by an average of between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century.

Dr Hulme said that while the results further confirm the overwhelming scientific consensus that man-made global warming is a proven phenomenon, he would be surprised if it were accepted by critics.

“I’m under no illusions that it will knock down the critics altogether,” he said. “In some quarters, people hold almost fundamentalist beliefs that are immune to carefully reasoned argument. A new paper that seems to take the legs away from one of their critiques may unfortunately not make much difference to their arguments.

“It is the totality of the evidence that has convinced the vast majority of experts that the planet is warming: surface temperature recordings, rises in sea level, retreating glaciers, shifting species domains.

“The compendium of evidence from all these different sources means the overwhelming majority of scientists feel justified in warning society about this.”


you get to be quiet now

Answer 2

The idea of global warming itself is not a fraud. Data will show that the earth's temperature has gradually risen over the course of the last 100 years.

Nobody alive today could tell you definitively what happened 450 million years ago. CO2 is not the only factor. For all we know, the skies were completely cloud-covered and didn't allow the majority sunlight in. That doesn't mean that CO2 does _not_ contribute to global warming.

Answer 3

I suggest you do a simple experiment. Build a small "hot house" using a piece of semi transparent plastic. Place a thermometer in side of it. If the temperature rises, you'll know the hot house effect works.

Now ask yourself, could such an effect work on a global scale, using a gas like CO2. If you believe it can, then we may be the cause of some of the warming that may be taking place, because we make a lot of CO2 gas.

Keep in mind that if global warming turns out to be, on the money, it will be game over for all of us if we don't act quickly. If it turns out to be inaccurate and we invest in an air clean up: we get to breath clean air again. Unfortunately, those in the oil industry, will have to find another job.

Answer 4

fortitudinousskeptic's response is flawed, He typed "What were the locations of the continents at the time? What was the Earth's albedo? Solar output?"
Then inexplicably goes on to say, "We're melting icecaps like gangbusters on a geological time scale."

How does humankind affect the locations of the continents, the Earth's albedo (reflectivity of the surface of a planet) or especially solar output?! Yet "We're" still melting the icecaps. Hmmmm...seems to be a flaw in the logic there.

Also, Nate is incorrect. The number one greenhouse gas is water vapor.

Any temperature changes the Earth is experiencing are cyclical and a natural event. People need to stop freaking out and calm down, but if you want to live your life as a doom and gloom-er that's your choice.

Answer 5

wjdoyle35, this study is still lacking. The number one greenhouse gas is Methane (in effect, not quanitity). It causes 12 times the effects of CO2. Scientist have found that the number one producer of methane is from the flagellence (especially that of cows). Also CO2 is a main biproduct of most living organizisms, so there can't be a direct correlation to humans polluting the air or whether it is just a natural phenomenon.

Global warming is occurring, but not necessarily due to mankind polluting like some scientists and organizations like to make you believe.

Answer 6

It's more complex than just carbon dioxide levels. What were the locations of the continents at the time? What was the Earth's albedo? Solar output? This guy sounds like a loose cannon......
It took me 10 years of looking at the data for global warming to become convinced. Scientists should be skeptical. But, alas, the data is overwhelming. We're melting icecaps like gangbusters on a geological time scale.

Answer 7

Global warming occurs as part of nature and humans may have a very very very small influence.

Al Gore is the fraud.

Answer 8

Don't forget, Mt Saint Helen's put more pollution into the atmosphere than all of human history.

Answer 9

Morons who only listen to this administration have no business even answering this question.
You come in biased and no matter how much scientific evidence we show you, you still won't believe it.
Die leck das Führers arsch!

Answer 10

So glad to see this additional info on what most intelligent humans know already. Send it to Gore would ya?