If you don't believe in global warming, look at this graph?

Question

http://www.globe-net.ca/images/temperatureGraph.gif

It looks pretty clear-cut to me. And the graph isn't just some made-up gobbledygook.

Well, I guess this isn't as interesting a graph as I thought - but does anybody have one that shows it better?

Answer 1

Here you go, 10 different reconstructions of the past 2000 years.

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

Answer 2

I prefer the graph in the source below.

I have some problems with your graph. It only goes back 1,000 years (my graph goes back 400,000 years).

Your graph IS made-up gobbledygook. I say this because of the word "reconstructed" in the name. How did they reconstruct this temperature? Is it a reliable reconstruction? Maybe, maybe not. I would need details on what was actually measured and how they measured it and how they used those measurements to reconstruct the temperature. However, it does look plausible.

It shows warming but doesn't prove we are causing the warming. It also shows quite a bit of cooling until a couple hundred years ago. What caused that? And could the same process now be causing the warming?

Now, why is my graph better? It is not a reconstruction. It is all actual measurements. 100% actual measurements with no computer modeling or reconstruction or assumptions that would change the result if they were assumed differently. All they did is drill ice cores out of deep glacers, count the layers of ice, one per year, and take gas samples from bubbles of air trapped in the ice. Then they used the same chemical measurements that they use on modern air samples to measure CO2 levels. I trust this graph 100%. It shows a dramatic rise in CO2 in the last 200 years that looks NOTHING like the natural variation of the last 400,000 years. But it says nothing about temperature. It is plausible the higher CO2 would cause warming, and that higher CO2 would be bad for other reasons too, but that is not 100% certain. However, there is no disputing the actual CO2 levels, and it is clear that if that trend continues for hundreds of years more it will be bad. But it does NOT say we will be in trouble in 50 or 100 years.

Answer 3

I'm sure that the National Enquirer seems pretty clear-cut to a lot of people, too.

Where does the gobbledygook start? When you combine indirect measurements and reconstructions from ice cores, tree rings, corals, and "historical" measurements of questionable precision. To validly combine those reconstructed temperatures, you would have to derive the current readings from ice cores, etc.

And sorry, campbelp, although you are on the right track by analyzing information a little more in depth. Although we can directly measure gases from an ice core, it is only a direct measurement of gases trapped in ice - ie, it is NOT a direct measurement of atmospheric gas. From those samples, we might infer what the composition of the atmosphere was at that time, but it is still just a "reconstruction" of global atmospheric composition. Seriously, though, keep digging through the information.

Answer 4

That is the temperature reconstruction graph of Mann et al. It has been debunked. The other most reasonable criticism of Michael Mann's conclusions was where he tried to claim the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age did not exist globally. A 2003 study by Soon and Baliunas compiled over 100 studies, both before and after Mann's study, which clearly indicated the presence of these two climate events.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Answer 5

That's the hockey stick graph, a graph that has been proven to be a forgery by independent scientific testing and the national academy of sciences. That graph, developed by Mann, was a deliberate misrepresentation of data, making it look like we are currently in unprecedented warming which we are not.

Answer 6

Yeah, I do not believe it. It leaves out the big warming bump, from 800AD through 1300 AD, and the Little Ice Age in the 1700's. Both were MAJOR deviations from "norm" of the 20th century . Look 'em up.

Looks like how I have heard Al Gore's propaganda looks.

And, for that matter, there were two abrupt rises noted back a number of years to levels comparable to what it claims happened a short time ago. Before they "smoothed" the chart!!

This disagrees with too much other known historical and scientific data.

Answer 7

Look at how big the range of error they have for old data. The graph doesn't show that we have a significant impact on the temperature.

Answer 8

Dana's is good. It's basically the same as your graph, but done with better statistical methods and more precise. It ends in 2004, it would be even more impressive if it went to 2006.

I also like this one. So much for "models don't work", or "it's the sun" or "it's volcanoes".

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

This document is simply loaded with them:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Answer 9

Remember, there used to be people who thought that smoking didn't cause lung cancer, because the tobacco industry spent billions spreading false information and co-opting scientists to mislead the public. Oil companies are doing the same thing, and there is a lot of junk going around. Some people are just too stubborn to see the truth.

Answer 10

look up on your search engine little ice age it will explain why the earth has been cooler the last few thousand years or so before humans were driving cars sealevels rose and fell on there own was it dinasoar farts?