FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Has global warming.....cooled?





Voodoocat
Global warming might not the so hot after all, if you believe Dr. Lindzen, a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT. Follow this link to his graph of global mean surface temperatures:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming/

Look at the last five years, global warming has slowed to a crawl at best. The fuzzy areas are the uncertainties. Notice that upper limit of 1995 is the same at the lower limit of 2008. This indicates that the temperature differences are either within or very close the the amount of uncertainty in the measurements.
ocalhoun
Any graph that proposes to track something as long-term as global warming needs to have at least 100 years on it.

The variations we see in just a decade are probably just random noise.

Methinks people don't really understand how slow global climate change is.
Gagnar The Unruly
I agree with Ocalhoun; taking such a small slice of the climate change data and arguing that global warming is slowing down is pretty ridiculous. If our small data set is the biggest obstacle in demonstrating that global warming is a real phenomenon, how is an even smaller dataset supposed to provide resolution? If you take all the data that are available, it's pretty clear that the world has warmed up quite a lot, and there's every reason to believe that it will continue to do so.
Solon_Poledourus
Warming-coolong-warming-cooling-etc... Ice age-glacial maximum-meltdown... repeat.
Human activity actually has very little to do with this process. Earth is a living organism that warms and cools in cycles, it's exaggerated by the excentricity of our wobble and the pull of our moon, but roughly 200 years of industrialization somehow drastically changing this natural event is an impossibility that is beyond stupid.
It's gonna get real hot, but liveable, in our future. But then it'll get real damned cold, and still liveable, yet again. We are just lucky enough to have prospered in the temperate climate in between extremes.
Hopefully we will have gathered enough data over the coming centuries, and have the wisdom to put it to good use, that in the future we may better survive and prosper during the extremes than our ancestors did.
ocalhoun
^True, for the most part. Humans may have contributed somewhat, but even then I doubt It'll get hotter than it ever has been before.

I wonder if they'd find someone to blame for it if we were heading for another ice age?
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
I wonder if they'd find someone to blame for it if we were heading for another ice age?

You bet your a$$ they would. It would be from too many people leaving the freezer open or some such crap.
Voodoocat
While I do admit that the graph shows only ten years of data, I believe it is significant. The basis of the global warming argument is that elevated carbon dioxide have lead to an escalation in the green house effect which has led to an increase in the global temperature. So if the carbon dioxide concentration increases, so should the global temperature, right?

Here is the problem: the first graph shows that any increase in global temperature is not significant: it is within the margin of error of the data. Yet carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last ten years: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ (at least at Hawii).

The last ten years of global temperatures do not correlate with the steady increase in carbon dioxide. A statistical bubble? Ten years of disagreement with the expected model seems to be more than a bubble.
Gagnar The Unruly
All I can say is that internet logic does not a model prediction make. The fact is that climate models are able to predict current conditions (statistical bubble and all) only if global [CO2] is included in the model. There are many reasons that the correlation between global [CO2] and temperature will not be perfectly correlated, but the experts are in agreement that concentration of greenhouse gases has an important effect on global climate, and that human activities.

In order to function, humans have to make rapid judgments based on our own perceptions of reality. It's great that everyone can form opinions on things without considering all of the facts. That's what scientists do in their personal lives but not their professional lives. The current climate models have taken years of work from thousands of scientists, all of whom were being very careful and simply following the data. If atmospheric carbon was not an important predictor of climate change, we would know that it wasn't, and no scientist would say that it was. Remember, in science we criticize the methods, not the findings. If you don't agree with the findings it's because:

a) you're wrong
b) the methods were wrong
c) the data are being misinterpreted (usually due to false assumptions) -- although this is more of a problem for certain types of data than others, and not so much with this type of data

If people have problems with the results, they need to think about how the methods could have introduced bias, or made misleading predictions. There is not a single person using this forum who is qualified to do so. The experts are qualified, they have been very careful, and they have reached a conclusion. Let's just trust the experts, shall we?
bennysong
Yay or maybe not.I hope that is right. Think Think Think Think Think Think Think Think Think Think Think Think Think Pray
farmerdave
Why I don't believe in global warming...

It's not for religious reasons. It's not because my political party seems to not believe in it. I just don't find the hard sciences supporting it. I think there are groups and individuals promoting an agenda that is devoid of true scientific backing. The end results for us will be ridiculous and unnecessary expense that will not affect the temperature of the earth in any significant way. Lastly, the data is not trustworthy. If you scoff at my last statement and write me off as ignorant, then read this and tell me what you think (document entitled "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" available as a free pdf):

http://www.heartland.org/books/SurfaceStations.html

Also, here is a conference with quite a few scientists present that offer their reasons for why global warming (A) does not exist or (B) is not caused by man (and, therefore, is not able to be stopped by man). You can watch the videos of the conference, listen to the audio, or read related documents:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html
Solon_Poledourus
Here's a funny thing. Have you ever been in a room with too many people? It gets a bit warm.
So to that effect, I can say that logically, yes, Humans do add to the warmth of the planet. So does everything else that creates heat naturally. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Does it matter?
I wonder if it hasn't occurred to any scientists that the heating/cooling cycle of the earth may just be a natural phenomenon that we have only recently been able to accurately measure.
I don't think all the chemicals and crap we throw into the air and water are good for the planet, but I also have a hard time believing that 200 years of industrialization have impacted global temperature to such an extent that we are able to measure it now(especially when we have probably less than 100 years of reliable data to go on). Man made global warming is a very big assumption, and not a very good one.
Gagnar The Unruly
farmerdave wrote:
I just don't find the hard sciences supporting it.


That's only because you aren't an unbiased climate change expert. The data are clear: global warming is happening, and human activities are contributing.

Quote:
If you scoff at my last statement and write me off as ignorant, then read this and tell me what you think (document entitled "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" available as a free pdf):


The temperature data from the National Weather Service is not the only, nor the most important data source for global temperature records. For one thing, the records are global. Obviously, the National Weather Service only has data for North America. For another thing, there are many ways of measuring surface and air temperature around the globe. Other agencies and independent scientists operate thousands of temperature stations planet-wide. It's also possible to measure temperature with some accuracy from satellites.

You should be aware that scientists already know that the climate data is imperfect. It is hard to get accurate measurements of temperature using weather stations, and there are far fewer of them around than we would like. But scientists are able to enter measurement uncertainties into their climate models. Our current models are robust enough that, given the uncertainties in data collection, we still know that climate change has happened recently, and we also know what is causing it. At this point more data will help us to make better predictions about regional effects of climate change; globally, the debate is over in scientific circles.

Solon wrote:
Here's a funny thing. Have you ever been in a room with too many people? It gets a bit warm.


I hope you know that that has nothing to do with global climate change...

Quote:
I wonder if it hasn't occurred to any scientists that the heating/cooling cycle of the earth may just be a natural phenomenon that we have only recently been able to accurately measure.


It's hard to say anything with certainty, but it's highly unlikely that anyone on this forum, myself included, has ever thought of a factor that could be affecting climate change that has not already been thought of by climate change experts. That said, we do have CO2 and temperature records going back tens of thousands of years.

Quote:
I also have a hard time believing that 200 years of industrialization have impacted global temperature to such an extent


There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. The fact is that you are not in a position to evaluate whether anthropogenic carbon emissions are capable of influencing global climate. You probably aren't qualified to diagnose yourself with pancreatic cancer, and you aren't qualified to make statements about the factors that influence climate change.

Quote:
Man made global warming is a very big assumption, and not a very good one.


It is not an assumption. It is a result. Scientists have entered available global climate change into a number of models, run a wide variety of possible factors that can effect global temperature, and if anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is not included in climate models, current climatic conditions cannot be explained. If it is, they can. This makes sense, as there is preexisting reason to believe that the massive carbon emissions we are responsible should influence global climate.
Solon_Poledourus
Gagnar wrote:
I hope you know that that has nothing to do with global climate change...
I know, I was just making a point that the mere presence of humans tends to change things.
Gagnar wrote:
It's hard to say anything with certainty, but it's highly unlikely that anyone on this forum, myself included, has ever thought of a factor that could be affecting climate change that has not already been thought of by climate change experts. That said, we do have CO2 and temperature records going back tens of thousands of years.
Frozen in ice and in rock layers and tree rings, but we can only guess at the reasons for those temperature changes. Sometimes we have records of geological events, but most of this science is speculation at best, that's why so many climatologists disagree on global warming.
Gagnar wrote:
There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Okaaayyyy...
Gagnar wrote:
The fact is that you are not in a position to evaluate whether anthropogenic carbon emissions are capable of influencing global climate. You probably aren't qualified to diagnose yourself with pancreatic cancer, and you aren't qualified to make statements about the factors that influence climate change.
As a point of fact, I am qualified to diagnose myself with pancreatic cancer, should the situation arise. As far as climate change goes, no, I'm not a climatologist. Neither are you. I was giving my opinion, because that's what a forum is for. I don't claim to know for a fact what makes the world warm and cool, but I do question a group of scientists who can't seem to agree on the matter. But since I'm not qualified to make such statements, and apparently you are, I should just keep my mouth shut then.
Gagnar wrote:
It is not an assumption. It is a result. Scientists have entered available global climate change into a number of models, run a wide variety of possible factors that can effect global temperature, and if anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is not included in climate models, current climatic conditions cannot be explained. If it is, they can. This makes sense, as there is preexisting reason to believe that the massive carbon emissions we are responsible should influence global climate.
"Possible factors", "reason to believe", "should influence"... It doesn't sound like proof of anything, it sounds like speculation to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's one way or the other. I'm just saying that it needs to be proven before it starts being called a fact. On that note, am I free to question the science until it is proven?
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
On that note, am I free to question the science until it is proven?

Any science worth the time of day should be questioned even after it is 'proven'... That's one major way new discoveries, insights, and theories are made.
Voodoocat
Quote:
I'm just saying that it needs to be proven before it starts being called a fact. On that note, am I free to question the science until it is proven?


Apparently not! The problem is that politicians and their mindless drones called the media have grabbed hold of the global warming THEORY and call it a fact. Lets be very clear here- global warming is a theory, not scientifically established fact. Remember, models are just best guess estimates at best.

Is the climate changing? Of course! Then again, at one time Canada was buried under a mile of ice.
Bikerman
Voodoocat wrote:
Quote:
I'm just saying that it needs to be proven before it starts being called a fact. On that note, am I free to question the science until it is proven?


Apparently not! The problem is that politicians and their mindless drones called the media have grabbed hold of the global warming THEORY and call it a fact. Lets be very clear here- global warming is a theory, not scientifically established fact. Remember, models are just best guess estimates at best.

Is the climate changing? Of course! Then again, at one time Canada was buried under a mile of ice.

(groans as he once more has to address this basic issue of meaning).
ALL science is theory or hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis which has been subjected to peer review and been experimentally tested.
ocalhoun
Real or not, we have problems that are bigger, more dangerous, more urgent, and easier to fix than global warming.
farmerdave
Gagnar The Unruly wrote:
farmerdave wrote:
I just don't find the hard sciences supporting it.


That's only because you aren't an unbiased climate change expert. The data are clear: global warming is happening, and human activities are contributing.

Quote:
If you scoff at my last statement and write me off as ignorant, then read this and tell me what you think (document entitled "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" available as a free pdf):


The temperature data from the National Weather Service is not the only, nor the most important data source for global temperature records. For one thing, the records are global. Obviously, the National Weather Service only has data for North America. For another thing, there are many ways of measuring surface and air temperature around the globe. Other agencies and independent scientists operate thousands of temperature stations planet-wide. It's also possible to measure temperature with some accuracy from satellites.

You should be aware that scientists already know that the climate data is imperfect. It is hard to get accurate measurements of temperature using weather stations, and there are far fewer of them around than we would like. But scientists are able to enter measurement uncertainties into their climate models. Our current models are robust enough that, given the uncertainties in data collection, we still know that climate change has happened recently, and we also know what is causing it. At this point more data will help us to make better predictions about regional effects of climate change; globally, the debate is over in scientific circles.


Gagnar,

It would appear that you didn't read or look at anything I pointed you to. So, I point you there again:

http://www.heartland.org/books/SurfaceStations.html
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

The first link started as a simple question from a meteorologist, which led to him investigating the majority of the weather stations across the U.S. He bases his conclusions on very nitty gritty "data", more particular than the simple "data" being used to promote global warming. If you want to dismiss my comments, please base it on this report after having read it. It is not that long and has lots of pictures (which illustrate his points all too well). I would be happy to engage a discussion on this.

The second link is to a conference featuring MANY scientists who disbelieve or highly doubt the existence of man-made global warming. They can't be dismissed so simply by waving the hand and suggesting that they aren't "unbiased climate change expert(s)." It is convenient to commit the logical fallacy of calling names, not contributing anything else to the discussion, and believing that this somehow wins the argument. The truth is NOBODY is unbiased and whoever believes they are, simply put, are self-deceived. Everybody has opinions and makes inferences. When it comes to man-made global warming, is it possible that there is a scientist out there who doesn't have some form of bias? I don't believe so and I'd be happy to hear proof that there may be such a man. Until then, I'll go with those whom I believe to be handling the evidence the most responsibly. There are quite a few of them (31,000 and counting in the U.S. alone: http://www.oism.org/pproject/).

For your viewing entertainment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFMNi-2SrQA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eglobalwarmingheartland%2Eorg%2F&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvLt3nU14W4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eglobalwarmingheartland%2Eorg%2F&feature=player_embedded
tony
Gagnar The Unruly wrote:
I agree with Ocalhoun; taking such a small slice of the climate change data and arguing that global warming is slowing down is pretty ridiculous. If our small data set is the biggest obstacle in demonstrating that global warming is a real phenomenon, how is an even smaller dataset supposed to provide resolution? If you take all the data that are available, it's pretty clear that the world has warmed up quite a lot, and there's every reason to believe that it will continue to do so.


Yes I agree also. But we may also add it's an old trick in the book - misinterpretation for fame Razz (please understand it is just my opinion - no offence to anyone Smile
Related topics
"global warming" questions... please share your an
Cow-Made Global Warming
Global Warming Source..
Global Warming
US media finally aknowledge Global Warming
Global Warming
Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)
What did Jesus do to cause global warming??
Global warming... Is it a problem?
Global Warming
Global Warming
Apocalypse Now? Global Warming Hotspots
Global Warming
GLOBAL WARMING
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Earth

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.