Who has read this and still doesn't recognize that anthropogenic global warming is the most likely explanation

Question

http://profend.com/global-warming/pages/intro.html

If you have read this and you still art convinced that AGW is a significant and the most likely possible cause of the current global warming phenomena why not. I have read a plethora of data and hundreds of scientific journal articles but this explains it in a way that gets rid of the jargon and seems unbiased. Do you agree.

It was probably hotter yesterday than the global average but that proves nothing. Where is this data for 1930 that you have cherry picked from the thousands of years of isotope data from glaciers and icecaps. I don’t understand what you mean specifically when you say cherry pick because it seems pretty clear to me that the data collected from the thousands of scientists all over the world monitoring global climate change has been collected objectively. If you don’t understand the data or how it is calculated or how to interpret it maybe you should listen to the scientists who study the topic.

The only thing insulting is your lack of understanding of the basic concepts of climate science. You do realize that the changes you talk about occurred over thousands or even millions of years and the changes in the climate that are now visible are occurring at a rate much faster than in the past. If the changes always occurred this fast the climate would be so variable that life would be hard pressed to adapt to change. I do admit though that a lot of which you refer to is the case but its not evidence that AGW doesn’t exist. Could you imagine a climatologist saying that its just a cycle or that its happened in the past. If it was a natural cycle as may are (sun irradiance 11 year cycles or variations in the suns orbit) they would be calculated and the scientists would be telling us exactly that. Why would it be in their interest to make things up. They already have jobs; make shitloads of money and don’t need global warming to survive. You show no evidence to the contrary.

Did you even read the link.

You do realize that in 1930 it was only the hottest year for the average temperature in the US. Besides the fact that this is not an average temperature recorded in a fashion that can be trusted (like the same site shows earlier) and that it is only the US data proves nothing.

Much of the historical temperature data used by scientists is collected via icecaps or glaciers and is calculated using from isotope values. Your website in some cases criticizes a technique of data collection or analysis and then uses it an a different situation involving sunspots. That’s crap mate you need to be objective and look at what you read and determine who has been mislead.

Dude that is not a piece of contemporary literature (1994 that more than ten years old) it uses old techniques. Why don’t you go down to the library and get some contemporary (2000-2007) climate literature from any journal and it will only have modern analysis and proven techniques.

Why don’t you look at the global average temperature data in the modern stuff before you and your friends contradict each other.

You guys actually put up a good argument but some muppets on here do neither side of the debate any good by saying things that are off the planet. This website (above) is climate change pro biased but it does show a lot of the general information in a simple form. A lot of people don’t no anything about it except absolute crap. There are many good articles that have valid data and show that AGW is a highly likely scenario. No scientist would ever say that it is 100% for sure except Gore bags who is a nutter i admit but you cant deny that the biggest weight of evidence suggests AGW is forcing the current temperature increases.
Consensus among scientists has been evident for many years before Gore jumped in and made some money
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

The above article although supposedly use to refute climate change in fact makes it even more robust given the absolute magnitude of scrutiny of the subject. furthermore the article only referred to the one article written not by a climatologist but by someone writing a collaborative work that they obviously muffed.

Im not refuting the fact that the data is out of date but the analysis techniques, and method of temperature collection are flawed as has been suggested in many reports many on your side of the debate. The fact is that there was warming and cooling and warming and cooling but the report only suggests that the climate in the country in question has experienced these changes and that at the time of the report, 1994 that mild conditions in the early 90s found that it was difficult to determine a trend. You do realize that it is 2007, it has been 14 years since 1994 (1994 inclusive) and therefore any trends that Sweden had 14 years ago have now been superseded by contemporary data or data that goes all the way up to 2007. If you think that because in one country, 14 years ago that they found no significant trends in temperature it disproved global warming, you’re out of touch.

Have you even looked at recent data for say the last thousand years or even 200 years. If the increased temperature trend continues, for how many years will it have to continue for you to change your mind or will you always think that is a natural trend. Look at historical data from ice cores and look at the time scales involved in temperature change and you will realize that they occur over tens of thousands of years and not within a century.

The warming in the MWP was fast but the data shows that it was over centuries, rose to levels below temperatures today and was restricted to the north Atlantic and not the entire earth. type it in on a search and you will see the evidence, do you think that the MWP is not considered when climatologists make hypothesis about current temperature changes.

The only places refuting the fact that it is warmer today than it was in the MWP are newspapers probably due to their ties to political groups and polluting companies. None of the refuting information is based upon contemporary evidence or verifiable data. Ships further north than now reported (they used to think you sailed of the end of the earth at the time how the *%$# would they know how far north they were and how would we now know.

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

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html


In the report below note how every time a piece of evidence is quoted and then refuted the only reference is to the refuted evidence and no evidence is given to the contrary. If i handed this in at university even as an undergrad i would fail and get done for not referencing appropriately.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=5POTZCCEQXHJNQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0

Answer 1

I agree with you, but of course the deniers on here won't. And profend is just a website. A better question is:

Who has read these, and still doesn't recognize that anthropogenic global warming is the most likely explanation?

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A
doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf

The above (and a lot more similar things) is the cause for these statements:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich (a Ph.D. who's not running for anything) challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

Answer 2

I'd say you included it proper right here... "Fortunately the anthropogenic cooling results approximately offset the opposite anthropogenic warming results..." You would wish to specify a time period for this... "...and the average results were almost 0..." Use the only from TAR for this... "I'll mainly point out that, hyperlink to the IPCC radiative forcing chart, and depart it at that." It's the one who indicates that the extent of medical expertise for the whole lot however GHG forcing is "Very Low." @Jim z... It's now not handiest plant stomata... Did you already know that the Greenland ice cores exhibit CO2 stages of three hundred-350 ppmv in the course of Upper Pleistocene interstadials? Since it is impossible that the Antarctic ice cores are improper, the so-referred to as consensus invokes an in situ carbonate response to provide an explanation for away the inconvenient CO2 stages within the Greenland ice cores.

Answer 3

It's no hotter today then it was in the 1930's. People can cherry pick the data they want to get the results they are looking for.

I'm waiting for objective proof to be discovered. Proof where the facts speak for themselves, where you don't have to be a specific type of scientist to interpret reading the tea leaves.

No one argues that the Sun is 93 Million miles from Earth, as any one can prove this fact. No on can tell you what the temp is going to be 5 years from now.;

Added: Please don't be insulting. The ice caps were once a mile thick over New York City. Canada and Scandinavia wouldn't exist if it weren't for global warming. The Earths climate is always changing. There is no such thing as a static climate. And the climate is going to change regardless of what man does. We are just too insignificant to have any impact.

Added : The Earth is always changing. The only reason you think that it's happening faster today is because that's what you choose to believe. The climate isn't changing any faster or slower than in past years.

Don't forget that the climate changed so quick after the MWP that Iceland was locked in a ice mass that killed off 2/3rds of the population.

For all anyone knows, the Sun could cool down in a couple of years and we'll be begging for the Earth to warm up again.

Added: Yea I read the link. Blah, Blah, Blah, the Earth is warming, we can't figure out the source, so it must be man, blah, blah, blah..... Far from objective science, don't you agree?

Added: 1930's Hot in the USA only? Check your facts bub, or is selective science the only way you can prove what you believe?

"Average temperatures in Sweden increased from the middle of 18th century through the 1930's. From 1940 to 1960 the average temperature decreased followed by a new period with raising temperature. Even if most winters in the beginning of the 1990's were unusually mild it is difficult to draw any definite conclusions from current trends."

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/nc/swe01.pdf

Warming in the 1930's was a world wide event.

And this is the first link I provided you. Making up data when it suits you?

Added: Temperature data that's more than 10 years old is outdated? Is that what you believe? That after 10 years you have to get "fresh" data about the past temperature readings?

That would fit the scam.

Answer 4

The warmers keep telling us that the temperatures have NEVER warmed as fast as they are doing now, or are projected to warm with the climate models.
But there IS evidence the climate changed dramatically in the past.
There is also a great amount of evidence that the whole global warming issue is based on politics. Look at Gore's movie, based on all kinds of lies, such as the oceans will rise 20 feet in another 100 years, the polar bears are going extinct, etc. It is all a fear mongering campaign led by socialists who want government to get bigger, more taxes and more control over people.
Look at James Hansen, the NASA scientist who claims the Bush administration is censoring him. It is all BS, he is free to speak as much as he wants, and does so with Soros's money.
Let's see how warm things are in another 20 years. People will chuckle at all the fools who were gullible enough to believe the charlatans.

The website could never be considered to be a scholarly source, it is just another rehash of the global warming propaganda. "Hardly anyone questions global warming anymore...blah blah blah..."

Answer 5

The source you are refering to is a little more pro-climate change and is somewhat more biased than the IPCC. It's not worth a read if you are interested in the technical aspects of the science.

Answer 6

No it's just more propaganda, just because it can be put on the Internet don't make it true. "Let me clear your head and tell you what to think in a simple fashion"