Global Warming skeptics - how do you explain these data?

Question

There are a lot of questions here addressed to those who believe the global warming concensus, asking them to explain such and such, and they always do a very good job of it. I've got some questions for the global warming skeptics. If global warming is fiction, or it's not caused by humans, why is it that:

1) Extreme weather events (early indicators of global warming) have been skyrocketing over the past few decades, particularly floods, as seen in this graph?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trends_in_natural_disasters.jpg

2) 1998 and 2005 were the hottest years in history, 2006 was the 6th hottest in history, the winter of 2006-2007 was the hottest winter in history, and considering the following global temperature graph?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

3) With global temperatures currently significantly higher than at any point in the past 2000 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Just considering all that data - not even anything more sophisticated, how do you explain that if human-caused global warming is a hoax?

Ash, I'm using graphs provided in Wikipedia because that's the best place to find them. They're representations of scientific data, so it's pretty sad to ignore them simply because they're presented by Wikipedia.

To most answers so far - yes the past 100 years is a relatively short sample period, but look at the trend in the graph. The temperature is trending drastically upward. Additionally, the past 2000 years is a significant sample time. One of the often cited skeptic arguments is that the Medieval Warm Period was hotter than now (false), and that's included in the 2nd graph. You can't invoke it once then later say it's invalid. Additionally, there are similar graphs that go back hundreds of thousands of years. Please answer the question rather than dismissing it.

Trevor - I enjoyed the sarcasm!

Curiam - you appear to be misinformed.

Global cooling in the '70s was not predicted to lead to an ice age. This claim by global warming skeptics is based mainly on a book written by a science fiction writer about a coming ice age. Science FICTION! From Wikipedia:

"Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[6]). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports."

Frankly I don't believe your comment about the rainforests, as it doesn't make sense and you provide no evidence to support it.

I am convinced by scientific data and not baseless claims. Scientific data points to man-made global warming being very dangerous. There has been no evidence presented here to refute that.

I'm still waiting for a single good argument that actually addresses the data rather than dismissing it. I'll say it again, made-up claims with no evidence to back them up do not convince me.

Answer 1

Can I put on my global warming skeptic hat and answer your question?

1) There's never been any extreme weather events, nothing has ever flooded, there's never even been any weather. This is true because Mars is warming and ExxonMobil said so.

2) No, wrong, don't beleive you. Thermometers weren't invented until last week. The graph is made up, Wikipedia want to tax us. 1998 was the coldest year on record, the Pacific froze, polar bears emigrated to Florida.

3) It was much warmer 2000 years ago. I used to live in a trpoical beach hut in the Arctic. The world is cooling. Volcanoes are to blame, they want to tax us as well.

You must admit, it's more convincing than most global warming skeptic's arguments.

Answer 2

I would like to know what happened to the ice age the same people were purporting in the 70s? I was looking forward to using my snowshoes here in the northwest.

Sarcasm

I am simply making a point that the more we study things the more times we found we misunderstood the data we have. The highest cause of the green house gases is the rain forest. Infact human caused green house gas is so miniscule it would realy have no effect. what I would like to see is to have an enviromentalist actually say there may be other reasons for global warming such as a natural cycle.

We do not have enough data to say that we are on a doomsday road. I think folks are really jumping the gun on this. We know for a fact that the earth was overall warmer during the Roman period. We can follow plant growth during different periods of time and see where it has been warmer.

It seems to me that many in the camp of the world is about to end and it is all my fault do not want to look any further then they have. If they do they may be afraid that it does not support there theories. Remember these are only theories that they draw from data which is only a small amount.

No one really disputes that the earth temperatures are rising we only dispute why and what effect it may have.

Here is some material to review for you. Regarding how Rainforest actually produce carbon and not take it away. I would suggest that you read up. Some people actually think they are carbon neutral but not many actually believe that they take it out of the atmosphere that is a fallacy

Answer 3

1) I addressed this in your new question. You have clearly made this up since even the IPCC say that global warming has no effect on the number or intensity of storms. This is a point raised by the ignorant masses, no scientist has ever said anything like this. Not to mention the fact that the period between 1941 and 1950 actually had more storms/year than we have seen now.

2) Not true, you like to ignore the records don't you. The 1930's had more record hot days than any other decade, it also contained the hottest day on record which has still not been met in current times. Also the rate of warming between 1910 and 1930 is grater than what we see today.

3) This is absolutely not true, you have linked to the hockey stick graph, a graph which has been proven to be a forgery, even the IPCC admitted that. The hockey stick graph erases the medieval warm period which was far hotter than today, you don't even need science to show you that, you can look at archaeological digs which show warm weather crops were plated far north, a feat we can not match even today.

Answer 4

1. Extreme weather events are caused by having a large differential in temps between the poles and the equator. The green house effect causes the poles to warm faster at the poles than the equator, so extreme weather would indicate global cooling.

Wikipedia is a conglomerate of diff people putting in their 2 cents and that is really all it is worth. Some things may be factual but it doesn't have to be to be in there.

2. 1998 and 2005 ext. is recent history. Records are conjecture since the thermometer was not invented till 1714. But since then we know of evidence of much warmer average temps were around in the early 1800's before the mini ice age that started around 1830's and we are still coming out of.

3. The third line is absolute crap. History indicates that it has been warmer on several occasions in the last 2000 years with evidence that is just as unscientific as what the global warming propagandists use.

Educate yourself and start to see the light. The environment is important. To important to be allowed to be used by a bunch of corrupt politicians for their own political gain.

Answer 5

I doubt that you are looking for the facts. You are probably looking to support your conclusion that we are all going to die and its the fault of mankind. In fact, the climate has generally warmed for the last few thousand years with some important ups and downs. One of the last downs was from 1940s to 70s and so, anectdotally, it may seem to you that we are warming alarmingly. In fact we are just continuing the trend of slow warming. The temperature warmed about a degree last century and will be similar for this century. People that push a global warming agenda never discuss the benefits. They focus on possible consequences, always exaggerating them. Far more people die of cold related deaths. As a geologists, I understand that sea levels and particular habitats are seldom stable (if ever). To imply that any change is bad is irresponsible and just plain ignorant. To imply that warming is bad is ridiculous. There will be good and bad. There is some warming going on but the real question is how much humans have impacted it and if we have what could we do to slow it down or stop it. There is very little indication that humans have had much of an effect. If we did, then why was there cooling in the 1940s to 70s. If we have little effect, then your worries will accomplish nothing except possible adverse effects on our way of life and economy and possible early death from stress by the worriers.

Answer 6

First off...You are only going back 100 years and in the third one only 2000? Wow...in the span of the planet that is what.... less than .02% of the time that this planet has been in the universe. So you can take all you want out of this but the Earth is doing what the Earth does. It warms and it cools. In reference to #2. There was a Global Warming Convention here in the Boston MA area that was canceled due to what??? Snow and freezing cold temperatures.
Now that being said...I think that mankind is not helping the problem, not that we can make a huge difference but a small one will help. I do recycle and save as much energy as I can. As we all should. There is only one planet and we need to take care of it.

Answer 7

Because it's relative to a 125 year history - - when you say the hottest in history you make it sound like when a historian says a battle was the bloodiest in history, meaning going back to Mesopotamia 5,000 years ago.

But what you mean is the measured temperature history, which isn't even as old as professional baseball.

And the physical evidence is that back when the Mesopotamians were the highest civilization 5,000 years ago, it was warmer than today.

We KNOW based on the physical evidence that at the beginning of this 125 year history we were coming out of a cool period - due for some warming.

That doesn't mean that the present warming isn't man-made or partly man-made.

It just means that you can't infer that because it's warmer than it was 125 years ago, ergo man must be causing it.

And we'd be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if you'd stop lying about whether it was warmer 1000 years ago.

As for the people who think it's a hoax, look a lot of the activist groups involved have been activist groups in other similar causes seeking similar government controls over the public's consumption of the same items. And the track record for accuracy is mixed. The Patagonian sheep had pinkeye (yes, Limbaugh pointed this out, and I'm not a huge fan of his, but if he's that stupid, what does that say about the people who were wrong about this, that they were debunked by him?). The Monsanto butterfly story turned out to be complete BS. The teflon birds, yeah, if you heat ANY pan to 600 degrees F it'll release fumes. You're right about a few things, like acid rain - but they PROVED that. That's all we're asking for is tangible proof - not just the assertion repeated ad nauseum, no matter who is repeating it.

You don't have that on man-made global warming. You have a long list of smart people who say it's us - none of whom have an iota of PROOF beyond mankind has emitted CO2 increasing the atmospheric concentration by 90 ppm, it's warmer now than it was when we started doing that, and CO2 traps heat. The fact that it's been warmer for reasons not understood when CO2 levels were higher does not mean human-generated CO2 isn't causing the present warming - but it DOES mean that you can't just infer causation from the rough temporal correlation between the dawn of the Industrial Age and the warming trend that began about 70 years later.

And right now that temporal correlation is all you have.

The response to that is to work on the tangible proof aspect of it, not to try to rewrite the climate history to make it look like the more recent prior warm periods didn't in fact happen. We're not going to accept such a revision unless and until you show how the dozens of events on which the original history was based - what grew when and where, etc... - happened if not for a warmer climate. How'd the Vikings farm Greenland if it wasn't warmer? You can't just dismiss this as "anecdotal" - the anecdotes are from almost every corner of civilization.

OK voting that the Vikings didn't farm Greenland doesn't change history so that it didn't actually happen - you know that, right? Sometimes I wonder....

Trevor it's a simple question you continue to avoid - how'd the Vikings do it if it wasn't warmer? And if it was a regional anomaly, how do you define that term, since tree lines were also higher in the Sierra Nevadas as well as the Alps? That's some isolated region!!!! That's.... the Northern Hemisphere! How do you dismiss that as anecdotal???

Whether or not you agree with the ultimate conclusion can't you admit that the rewriting of the MWP out of the climate history is nothing short of Orwellian? Can't you see that if you want to convince people with critical thinking skills and intellectual rigor, trying to sweep the MWP out of the rug will do your cause more harm than good?

Dana the Hockey Stick is the climatological equivalent of Piltdown Man. Global temperatures are NOT higher than at any point in the last 2000 years, that's a LIE.

Again, please explain how the dozens of events indicating a warmer period 1000 years ago happened and I'll go along. How were tree lines 300 feet higher, how'd the Vikings farm Greenland, how'd grapes now grown in Provence fare so well in parts of England where 500 years later, rivers would freeze in winter, how'd fig and olive trees grow in Germany.... The rice paddy data is no different from the British wine grape data by the way - but let's start with the Northern Hemishere - all of it, not an isolated region within it....

Still waiting....

...waiting for you or anyone else to BACK UP the assertion that it wasn't warmer 1000 years ago, not just say it.

I've given you the long list of physical evidence just in the Northern Hemisphere - you haven't addressed any of it.

Sorry, cherry picked proxy data doesn't entitle you to just dismiss physical evidence - take any SINGLE item - - why were tree lines 300 feet higher in DIFFERENT regions?

Chief, maybe a PICTURE will convince you - how'd that tree get there? How'd it grow at a higher altitude than trees grow now? BECAUSE IT WAS WARMER.

Answer 8

There are many scientists who believe GW is a natural occurrence and that the climate is always changing. When you have 73 minutes to spare, you should check out this documentary. Keep an open mind and consider that they might be right.

Google Video: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Answer 9

I am still waiting for anyone to give a logical reason why warmer temperatures are a bad thing.

Here is a short list of other crisis events that "scientists" have influenced government to support.

Swine flu
Red dye #2
The coming ice age
SARS
Hole in the ozone
Sun caused skin cancer
acid rain

I am sure that there are more (feel free to add on) but what every single one of these has in common is that it is a scare tactic to increase government funding for research scientists. In a few years when no evidence comes out to show support for this theory then they will move on to the next scare tactic.

Answer 10

So, one of the major factors to determining the overall temperature of the Earth - as I understand it from scientific sources - is total rainfall. And, even with all the current level of sophistication, they aren't able to determine this.

I agree - people should recycle & buy recycled items. Limiting waste just makes sense!

But, I disagree - do you know that eliminating CFC's made companies change over to hCFC's - but they needed to use MORE of it, so overall pollution was increased? Legislation needs to be well thought out and long term - and I think more studies need to be done. Just remember, the first Earth Day the major issue was that we were heading into another ice age - these climatic cycles occur naturally to SOME extent and we still don't understand them. Personally, I'd like to see some UNBIASED studies - but we don't seem to fund pure research anymore. I end up doubting all sources (espcially after the WHO recent relevations!)

Good question though, thanks!