First of, let me start off by saying that I do not concur with what some people are saying about global warming I cannot deny that the annual mean global temperature has been increasing, but I don't agree with the proposed causes, means, corrections, and implications. So, with my biases out of the way...
I have looked at the graph, and cannot find any bias at all. The graph had used 1991-2000's mean temperature as a base line to the zero mar (it would not matter at all what years you use, the data in the end are all the same numbers). In this graph you look to the right (2000-2007) and see the mean temperatures increasing, and you look to the left (1880-1935), and see that the average temperature was lower than that of 1991-2000.
One the other hand, all this shows is that the global mean temperature has been increasing since 1880, and does not show any possible correlation to previous increased temperature "hiccups" that may have happened in the past that were not a result of "global warming".
However, enough said, with out a doubt, that graph shows no biases in showing the mean temperatures between 1880-2006.
2007-12-18 14:08:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
To depict a wave of this type for a specific (and arbitrary) set of dates is designed to imply an unusual increase in temperature. What one would see if the graph went further back in time is a regular steady amplitude. So if your point is to prove that the temperature varies withing a certain range, then this graph is useful. If it is intended to show an abnormally high increase, we need to see the entire time-line or much further back in time. If we have no earlier data then this graph is of little use other than to demonstrate that the temperature being measured varies +/- a half degree.
That begs the question, so what? There is no reason to believe that it will trend up or down again based on this graph. If this is what is being presented as proof of man made global warming, it could not be weaker.
Besides, we would have to rule out every other possible cause to verify man's effect on the temperature. That would include ruling out solar radiation increases, volcanic eruptions etc.
Use of this kind of data is more to support a conclusion already reached than to seek what that conclusion should be.
Merry Christmas!
.
2007-12-18 14:19:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jacob W 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Climate Change Rallies, Realities, and Sacrifices
By Paul Driessen
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The mantra is repeated daily. There is consensus on climate change. Global warming is real. It will be a disaster. Humans are to blame. We have to do something – immediately.
However, the consensus of 100 scientists is undone by one fact, Albert Einstein noted. The United Nations and its Climate Cataclysm army of 15,000 in exotic Bali clearly understood that.
They were not about to let even one fact prevent them from promoting climate scares and a successor to the Kyoto treaty. Gloom-and-doom scientists and bureaucrats owned Bali’s podiums. Radical environmentalists fumed and staged stunts. Al Gore denounced President Bush, repeated myths that enthralled the Academy and Nobel committees, and demanded sacrifices – by others.
Meanwhile, respected climate scientists were barred from panel discussions, censored, silenced and threatened with physical removal by polizei, if they tried to hold a press conference to present peer-reviewed evidence on climate, such as:
Climate change is natural and recurrent. The human factor is small compared to that of the sun and other natural forces. There has been no overall global warming since 1998, and most local and regional warming trends have been offset by nearby cooling. A half-degree of net warming since 1900 (amid a number of ups and downs) does not foreshadow a catastrophe. Recent glacial retreats, sea-level rise and migrations of temperature sensitive species are all within the bounds of known natural variability.
The best approach is to adapt, as our ancestors did. Money and resources devoted to futile climate prevention actions would be better spent on malaria, AIDS, poverty and other pressing problems. Perhaps most important, no country can progress or prosper without abundant, reliable, affordable energy that would be in short supply if draconian climate laws are implemented.
UN alarmists would not tolerate such heresies. They blamed every regional weather and climate blip on human emissions, and trotted out computer scenarios that they insist “prove” we must take drastic actions to avert Armageddon.
But computer models do a poor job of incorporating our still poor grasp of complex and turbulent oceanic, atmospheric and solar processes. They are based on conjecture about future technologies and emissions, and cannot predict climate shifts even one year in the future, much less 50 or 100. They simply produce “scenarios” and “projections” of what might happen under assorted assumptions – enabling alarmists to trumpet the most alarming outputs to support drastic action.
Those scenarios are evidence of climate chaos the way “Jurassic Park” proves dinosaurs can be cloned from DNA trapped in prehistoric amber.
However, Bali negotiators insisted that the world faces a climate crisis that can be averted only by slashing greenhouse gas emissions. Ultimately, they could agreed only to “deep cuts” by 2050, with definitions to be written later by countries that are not about to commit economic suicide. Many environmentalists and members of Congress nonetheless continue to demand CO2 reductions of up to 40% below current emission levels by 2020 – and 80% or more by 2050.
It’ll be easy, they insist. Rubbish, Even a 25-40% reduction over the next twelve years would impose major sacrifices on families, workers and communities, especially poor ones – while leaving no room for population or economic growth.
Fossil fuels provide 85% of the energy we use. Slashing emissions by even 25% means slashing the use of these fuels, paying vastly more to control and sequester emissions, and radically altering lifestyles and living standards. Families will do so voluntarily, or under mandatory rationing systems, enforced by EPA, courts, climate police and “patriotic” snitches. Getting beyond 25% would require a “radical transformation” of life as we know it.
Senator Joe Lieberman admits his “climate protection” bill would cost the United States “hundreds of billions” of dollars. Economist Arthur Laffer calculates that “cap-and-trade” schemes would reduce economic growth and penalize average American families $10,800 in lost income by 2020.
That’s on top of the $2000 in higher energy costs that US families have endured since 1998 – and the 11% extra that USA Today says average households will pay this winter compared to a year ago. Higher energy costs will increase the price of everything we eat, drive, buy and do.
Reaching or exceeding 25% targets could require transformations like these.
Parking your car – and riding a bike. You’d get to work and the grocery in better shape – and guilt-free if you don’t exhale.
Disconnecting air conditioners and setting thermostats to 50 degrees all winter. Swim suits and UnderArmor are excellent substitutes.
Eating all leftovers. Seattle has decreed that by 2009 single-family homes must recycle all table scraps – because their decomposition generates greenhouse gases – or have their garbage collection terminated.
Shutting down coal and gas power plants, and replacing them with new nuclear plants or forests of gargantuan wind turbines. Blanketing Connecticut with turbines could meet New York City’s electricity needs, and covering Texas and Louisiana could satisfy US needs, at least when the wind is blowing, says Rockefeller University professor Jesse Ausubel.
Closing paper mills and factories. Perhaps newly unemployed workers could find jobs in China and other developing countries, where the tough emission standards won’t apply – or in the new carbon-free economy that politicians promise will arise once climate bills are enacted.
Closing dairy and poultry farms. Producing meat accounts for 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions, so this would make both greens and PETA happy.
Adopting “sustainable green technologies,” like the treadle-powered irrigation pumps environmentalists are sending to poor countries, to replace diesel pumps. An Indian villager toiling on his eco-bicycle for three years could offset the CO2 from one jetliner full of environmentalists heading to Bali.
An appropriately green solution would be requiring that climate confabs be via video-conference – from Albania or Zambia, to discourage attendance by bureaucrats and activists. We might also insist that politicians eschew private jets and take Smart Cars to campaign and global warming rallies.
Meanwhile, China is adding the equivalent of another Germany every year to global greenhouse emissions, says climatologist Roger Pielke. Thus, if CO2 really does cause climate change, all these sacrifices might prevent global temperatures from rising 0.2 degrees.
Adapting to whatever heat, cold, floods, droughts and storms nature (or mankind) might bring seems a much saner and less costly course of action.
Paul Driessen is the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.
2007-12-19 10:00:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by Salomón II 2
·
0⤊
1⤋