another for the global warming advocates?

Question

the ipcc based their decision (that global warming is real) off thirty years of global warming, and the warming during that period was mere tenths of a centigrade. the earth has been shown to go through periods of warming exceeding the minute amounts of tenths of a centigrade, therefore the temperature raising that little does not serve as evidence for global warming.

check out this link:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png

take note how the anamoly in 1860 was -.4, and now the anamoly is +.4. 1860 is LONG after the industrial revolution began, and long after people starting pumping CO2 in the air -- so why was the temperature DOWN in those years? it's down because the earth goes through cycles, same as now. it gets warmer, then cooler.

as for co2 measurements and their correlation with temperature: we haven't proven that the measurements are accurate to tenths of a degree, therefore we can't say they're accurate when global warming proponents state that the warming is based off of a tenths of a degree. also, we only started this whole co2 in the not too distant past. when one talks about as grand scales as hundreds of years ago, before we can verify those measurements as 100% accurate, we’d have to wait hundreds of years to see if we get the same results. therefore: global warming has not been proven. possible, but not proven.

also: for those who don't agree, please don't use the "you're stupid" or "you're a liar" argument. provide a legitimate argument.

also: scientists who claim to be skeptic or say they want to check to see if the evidence can be disproved, lose grants and their jobs. the weather channel, unless i'm mistaken, requires applicants to sign a statement saying they think global warming is real. when only one side of the argument gets funded, that's the only side that can be built up sufficiently.

the first decent thermometer was built in 1617 by biancani. 1617 is AFTER the minor ice age in the 1500's, the ice age we are still coming out of. therefore, it seems logical that the anamoly is slightly lower than we believe it to be.

for those who don't believe the thirty years of warming statement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#IPCC_Policymakers_Summary_criticism

Answer 1

You're mostly right.

From the IPCC AR4:

"It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM-4). The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing."

As far as man-made warming, the consensus is for the last 50 years - there is no correlation for anything prior to this, regardless of what others have stated so far.

Also note the wording "over each continent" and "except Antarctica". This suggests that the correlation does not hold true when you include oceanic and Antarctic temperatures - WELL OVER 80% OF THE GLOBE.

Makes you wonder how they can call it "Global".

Perhaps they should call it "One-Fifth Global Climate Change."

Answer 2

Your skepticism is rational and your arguments serious. And you're looking at the right data with that link. But there is a simple answer.

You're choosing individual years (the points). The weather is variable year to year. What counts for climate is the average, the red line. That's a five year average, which is long enough to show the real trend.

The five year average also averages out some errors in the data, making it more precise. That averaging a number of measurements is better than any single measurement is a fundamental principal of science.

The 5 year average is now about one degree warmer than the 5 year average around 1860. That doesn't seem like much, but it's done serious melting of the Arctic ice cap, and warming of the ocean.

Two or three degrees (we're heading there fast, the rate of change is accelerating) will do serious damage. Details here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

Global warming is not just based on 30 years of warming. But it is true that only in the last 30 years have greenhouse gases taken over as the controlling factor, simply because of the amount produced. You can see that clearly here:

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

I'm starring your question - it's thoughtful and data based. Keep thinking and exploring, these discussions are way more useful than most.

Answer 3

1. The IPCC based their conclusion that the planet is warming on not just thirty years of direct observation, but dozens of model and proxy based temperature reconstructions as well.


2. The temperature was down in those years for various different reasons. No one thinks that CO2 is the sole driver of climate. In fact, many scientists believe that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 were not high enough to drive the change until around 1940. So the warming up to that point was primarily driven by some other forcing agent like the sun.

Asserting that the warming must all be due to a "natural cycle" is meaningless unless you give evidence of some sort of active natural forcing agent. All those times when the Earth "got warmer or cooler", it did so because something was =making it= get warmer or cooler. The climate just doesn't change without something forcing it to.

3. Very little in science is proven. I don't see why this is relevant. In fact the whole point of this sort of science is to give us advanced warning =before= the facts become obvious to everyone.



4. Name one single scientist who has ever lost a grant or their job for not accepting global warming theory. I don't care about some nut on CNN saying that scientists who don't accept the theory have no credibility. Show me a single instance of this actually happening.

Answer 4

I’ll briefly touch on some of the points you mentioned.

The IPCC is, for want of a better description, an umbrella organisation that brings together scientists from around the world to act in an advisory and reporting capacity to governments and the like. As such they don’t make decisions, this is beyond their remit.

In preparing their documents they rely on and collate the findings of tens of thousands of scientists from a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines adopting many different approaches to global warming and climate change.

The data the authors used in writing the various reports stretches back 542 million years but the focus is on the more accurate data we have that extends back 800,000 years (450,000, 650,000 and 700,000 years at the times the main IPCC reports were prepared).

Any confusion relating to 30 years most likely arises from the fact that a 30 year base period (1960 to 1990) is used for comparison purposes.

The main focus has been on climatic changes during the last couple of hundred years or so (1750 is often used as the ‘starting point’).

Rather than looking at the graph from 1850 this is perhaps a better one to look at as it cover 2000 years and gives a broader picture - http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png What’s important to note isn’t how much warmer one year was compared to another but what the longer term trends are. This graph clearly shows the warming leading to the Medieval Warm Period and the cooling of the Little Ice Age. The MWP was the culmination of over 1000 years of natural warming in which temps rose by approx 0.4°C, the LIA being occasioned by falls in temps of approx 0.7°C over 600 years. Both of which are natural events with clearly understood reasons buy the rate at which they occurred was many times slower than the rate at which temperatures are currently rising (MWP = 0.0004°C PA, LIA = 0.001°C PA, now = 0.018°C PA).

So yes indeed, the Earth does go through natural warming and cooling cycles but not at the rate by which we’re currently warming – far from it. In fact, at no time in history have we ever known the planet to be warming at close to it’s current rate.

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

The role that CO2 and the other greenhouse gases plays is well documented as it has been for some time. True, we now have greater understanding than when Svante Arhennius first established the links between greenhouse gases and global warming back in 1896. But with over 100 years of scientific study under our belts we know exactly how and why the greenhouse gases cause global warming, the roles that each of them play, their effectiveness, the contribution each makes etc. So much so that we’re not operating within margins of tenths of a degree but to thousands of a degree.

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

The claim that scientists are at risk of losing research grants or their positions is a fallacy put about by some who seek to discredit the science of global warming. Science is based on questioning things, it’s how progress is made, it’s imperative that people do question all aspects of global warming. Within my own organisation we actively seek out people to question what we’re doing and to try to find fault.

There is generally less funding available now to the sceptics but that’s largely because the private sector no longer funds sceptical scientists to discredit the mainstream way of thinking. A few years ago many large oil companies and multinationals hired scientists with the objective of picking holes in the global warming theory. Unable to do so and in the face of mounting evidence the companies concerned ‘switched sides’. Consequently their focus of attention has shifted from trying to discredit global warming to adjusting their business models in order to profit from it; hence the diversification into new and alternative fuels and technologies.

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

The very early thermometers were thermoscopes and not particularly reliable, it didn’t help that at the time there was no recognised scale. It was 1654 (I think) that the first reliable thermometer came into being and interestingly it’s just 5 years later that the first reliable temperature records begin (HadCET).

Basically we have limited instrumentally recorded temperature data going back 350 years and a reliable global record only as far back as about 125 years. There are other ways of determining temperatures without the need for thermometers. Many techniques are used, perhaps the best known is ice core analysis but this is just one of many.

By comparing a variety of data sets we can establish their reliability. If ten different approaches to a problem all produce the same results then it’s fair to say the results are accurate. Further, we can use the same methods to establish what the temperatures were in years that have been instrumentally recorded. If for example, sedimentary analysis for 1900 gives the same results as the actual thermometer readings taken at the time we know the method is accurate.

Answer 5

I think the climate scientists would argue that the average mean world temperature is in fact consistent at a level of 0.1 C. There are numerous discussions of this on

http://www.realclimate.org

Note that there are two issues here: the absolute accuracy, and the relative accuracy between years. It is the latter that they claim is within 0.1 C.

There are lots of climate "forcings". The climate has varied in the past and all those changes were caused by natural forcings. For the past 35 years, all the forcings have been well measured by satellites and modern instruments, and the current rise in temperature is fully attributable to anthropogenic CO2.

Answer 6

"the ipcc based their decision (that global warming is real) off thirty years of global warming"

This is simply incorrect. The IPCC examined thousands of scientific papers, some of which were paleoclimatology papers which examine data over a time span of hundreds of thousands of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

The Earth does not go through climate cycles on a decade or century period length. There are cycles (called Milankovich Cycles), which have a much longer period and according to which we should be in a cooling period right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycle

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."

Climate models have shown that human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for approximately 80-90% of the warming over the past 40 years. There are of course other factors, which these models take into account:

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

Answer 7

>> also: scientists who claim to be skeptic or say they want to check to see if the evidence can be disproved, lose grants and their jobs. the weather channel, unless i'm mistaken, requires applicants to sign a statement saying they think global warming is real. when only one side of the argument gets funded, that's the only side that can be built up sufficiently. <<

Wasn't it Heidi Cullen who stated that if climatologist didn't believe in global warming, they should lose their accreditation?

No pressure to fall in line, I guess....

Isn't her show produced by a former CNN executive?

Answer 8

I think you mean the IPCC based their decision that there is a 90% chance that AGW is real, off thirty years of data. I have not seen any instance of the IPCC admitting they believe without a doubt that their junk science conjecture is a fact.

Answer 9

This is totally false. The thing to realize about wikipedia is that ANYONE can post ANYTHING on there. So if it's used as a source, ANYONE can "prove" ANYTHING.

IPPC did NOT base their reports (they aren't in a decision making role) on thirty years worth of data. They based it on nearly 200 years worth of weather records, several million years worth of core samples, and several billion years worth of geologic data. What is going on now has NOT happened since the time the current continents formed, well prior to the Dinosaurs, and ALL of the recorded ice ages.

Answer 10

Do you really think your numbers and stats can beat the mighty hologram casting Algore and his voodoo GW books.
and the great movie Incontinent Truth