Global Warming Advocates??

Question

Please read the following article and explain why you have clung to the rantings of a non-scientist such as Al Gore?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Answer 1

Anyone who wants a more detailed explanation one can read
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf

In Trevor's link above he uses the Mann temperature reconstruction graph (the hockey stick curve) that has been discredited. Soon and Baliunas (2003) studied over 100 temperature reconstruction papers from all over the world and concluded:
"Climate proxy research provides an aggregate, broad
perspective on questions regarding the reality of Little
Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century
surface thermometer global warming. The picture
emerges from many localities that both the Little Ice
Age and Medieval Warm epoch are widespread and
near-synchronous phenomena, as conceived by Bryson
et al. (1963), Lamb (1965) and numerous researchers
since. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the
warmest anomaly of the past millennium in most of the
proxy records, which have been sampled world-wide.
Past researchers implied that unusual 20th century
warming means a global human impact. However, the
proxies show that the 20th century is not unusually
warm or extreme."

As a matter of fact most temperature reconstructions show a great correlation between sun spots and temperatures. Notice the graph in the link I have given.

Answer 2

I've briefly looked at this report before, it very quickly became apparent that it's a deliberate attempt to hide facts, distort the truth and th push a one sided aggenda. It contributes nothing of value to the global warming debate and is an irresponsible attempt to sway gullible minds.

The main gist seems to be that global warming is the result of sunspots. The sunspot cycle is an eleven year cycle, if sunspots were to blame then we would see 5.5 years of warming followed by 5.5 years of cooling, which quite obviuously we don't. The article isn't remotely accurate and is thinly veiled as science in the hope of convincing those who know nothing about science or global warming that the whole thing has other explanations.

Here's a graph showing that the number of sunspots has been pretty average in reecent decades whereas temps and CO2 levels have risen significantly http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

------------

Further info. We have extremely accurate methods of measuring solar activity and the amount of heat energy received from the sun. The variation between minimum and maximum output is tiny, it's a deviation from the mean of less than one thousandth.*

Further, there has been nothing excpetional in sunspot activity for the last few hundred years and even when there is exceptional behaviour the rate of warming / cooling that is occasioned on planet Earth is very slow. The most recent significant event is a period of approx 300 years known as the Maunder Minimum when there was almost no sunspot activity at all, this coincided with a climatic event known as the Little Ice Age during which time temperatures in some parts of the world fell by 0.6 degrees C over 300 years*. The LIA also coincided with above average volcanic activity and the decimation of the population of Europe. In short, even when there was almost no sunspot activity it only caused an annual temperature change of 0.0007 degrees per year, this compares to the current trend where temperatures are changing by 0.0177 degrees per year - 26 times as fast.



* The mean is 1366 Watts per square metre per year, the range of deviation is 1.3 W/m2/yr.

* The drop in temperature wasn't the same across the globe, Europe saw the greatest drop.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Edit, to Eric C (below). The graph I've linked to is not 'the Mann temperature reconstruction graph' (of which there are several, not just one). I've used a graph from Stanford University Solar Centre whereas the graph you're linked to comes from Dr Tim Patterson. An important difference between SUSC and Dr Paterson is that one is an organisation that studies the sun and the other is an individual who studies the earth. The graph I've linked to isn't the hockey stick graph and it doesn't include either the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period.

Answer 3

a million. The IPCC based their end that the planet is warming on no longer purely thirty years of direct assertion, yet dozens of sort and proxy based temperature reconstructions besides. 2. The temperature grew to become into down in those years for fairly some distinctive motives. no person thinks that CO2 is the only driving force of climate. in actuality, many scientists have faith that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 weren't intense adequate to rigidity the replace till around 1940. So the warming as much as that factor grew to become into specifically pushed via another forcing agent like the solar. asserting that the warming would desire to all be as a results of a "organic cycle" is incomprehensible till you provide data of a few style of lively organic forcing agent. All those cases while the Earth "have been given warmer or cooler", it did so as a results of fact some thing grew to become into =making it= get warmer or cooler. The climate purely does not replace without some thing forcing it to. 3. little or no in technology is shown. i do no longer see why this is suitable. in actuality the completed factor of this way of technology is to furnish us stepped forward warning =in the previous= the data replace into obtrusive to all people. 4. call one single scientist who has ever lost a furnish or their job for no longer accepting worldwide warming theory. i do no longer care approximately some nut on CNN saying that scientists who do no longer settle for the theory have not any credibility. teach me a single occasion of this unquestionably happening.

Answer 4

Trevor is completely right. Three things.

Al Gore has nothing to do with the accepted science that says global warming is real and mostly caused by us. It makes no difference what he says or does.

The "hockey stick" is basically correct. The original one had some minor statistical problems. It has since been duplicated many times using rigorously correct methods. Ten peer reviewed studies, using a variety of methodologies, all saying basically the same thing:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

Soon and Baliunas work is questionable, to say the least. After a journal published an article of theirs, many of their references said their work had been misused. Many on the editorial board of the publication resigned because of what they said was a bad peer review process, leading to publication of a faulty article. Details here:

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/deja-vu/
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/Chronicle%20of%20Higher%20Education.030904.pdf

Trevor is right, and deserves the ten points.

Answer 5

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
Solar scientists say that by 2020 the sun will be into its weakest solar cycle (aka. It won't be so darn hot ... and there is nothing man can do to stop it!)

Answer 6

I also agree with Trevor and Bob, and find it ironic that Eric would criticize the Mann graph while himself citing a paper that uses a flawed temperature graph.

Answer 7

You're going to believe an article put out by 'Finacial Post'? Think about it.....Actions taken against GW would hurt many business.......So of course they're going to try to debunk it.

Answer 8

some people really ENJOY being lied to, you know like a magic show, you see it you know it cant be real but you WANT to believe it anyway.

Answer 9

I already answered this once, go to the link