how long of a data set do we really need to decied about gloabl warming as sims are just that?

Question

a simutlation, with computers that have only been around for so long and recoreds of detialed info going back maybe 30 years at the most so how can we make a judgment with meger amounts of data and possiably corrupt data from before the use of detialed weather monitoring equipment?




by the way i'm i'm 100% behind the global warming theory or cuase or whatever cuase i thnk we should make the changes everyone is talking about anyways regardless of if it is a problem or not
which i think it is , but any good logical person wil tell you to find the truth you must aruge both sides even if it is crazy

Answer 1

Its plain dumb to pollute our planet. I agree on that point and take more measures than the average to help reduce pollution.

That said, the evidence, when you go back far enough to create a valid statistical universe, is far from conclusive that anything is even happening other than a part of the natural course of events. The fact that the global warming theorists omit data that contradicts their theory, misrepresent factual data and claim theoretical data as fact only lead me to believe they are very shady and their theories are weak. The computer models are so badly flawed that any high school student should be able to see why they don't mean anything.

I fully support paying unbiased scientists and giving them a free hand to perform whatever research is needed to establish true data. So long as the science is well done, well documented and untouched by politics and special interest groups I will accept whatever conclusion they come too. To date, that has not happened and I know beyond a doubt that some of the data from the IPCC 'scientists' is faked. I also know beyond a doubt that research indicating global warming is wrong has been suppressed. The only reason for the last two items is because the truth will hurt global warming theorists.

Bob: It is NOT clear that recent patterns are not natural. Unless you can present evidence that the current weather patterns have not occured in the past that is not a valid statement. And coincidence does not prove causation. A brief coincidence of data points in no way demonstrates anything other than an interesting set of data points. The statistical universe is to small to mean anything. Using the IPCC reports to demonstrate the IPCC is correct is a circular argument and invalid.

Answer 2

The expected effect of global warming is 3 degrees Centigrade per century, or 0.03 C per year.

The annual average global temperature has a root-mean-square variation of about 0.12 C, caused by a variety of natural effects (solar variations, volcanoes, forest fires, solar wind heating, etc.).

It is, therefore, not at all unlikely that the annual average global temperature could decline for periods as long as 5 years, even though warming due to anthropogenic CO2 were occurring as expected. Since the natural effects tend to be correlated year-to-year, the natural signals can be even more confusing than a simple argument based on independent natural drivers indicates. A baseline of around 15 to 20 years is what is needed, and indeed that is what we have been seeing recently: a fairly clear indication of global warming, emerging from the background of more random natural effects.

Better modeling is needed. Also, intensive study of the various feedback effects, both positive and negative. Compared to the possible vast cost of global warming, little is spent on serious study, and in fact politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are discouraging further research, because both sides think they've already got the final answer.

Answer 3

A thoughtful criticism.

Look at page 11 of this report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The graphs compare observed data to modeled data. The black lines are the observed data, the pink bands are models including anthropogenic (man made) factors, the blue bands are models with only natural processes modeled.

As you say, the data is not precise. Yet, it is good enough that two things are clear. Recent behavior of temperature is not natural and the models are pretty decent, even if just approximate.

As to the degree of consensus in the scientific community, here is actual data on that:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The bottom line:

"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case."

Answer 4

well the problem, contrary to Al Gore's statements before Congress, is that NOT all scientists are in agreement -

temperature - cycles

and the problem is - you have credible people on both sides of the question

so why not go nuclear power like France? more people have died in the back of Ted Kennedy's cars than in nuclear accidents in the United States - but the last nuclear plant to get a certificate to build is over 30 years ago - ooops it's not on the left agenda

and to think that Al gets carbon credits - uhhhh - to his own company - that he owns? - what a write off - what a joke

Answer 5

We don't know. Considering that most climatic programs can't forecast the weather 3 days in advance, I have my doubts about the models. We have no idea if the temperatures taken in 1900 were calibrated to the same numbers we measure. I agree that we need to make changes if nothing more just to conserve what we have