Kimura
VIP Member
Notwithstanding their locations, they all demonstrate temperatures have been rising.
Every bit of credible data shows the median temperature average has risen 1 degree over the past 100 years. There are literally dozens of things which can explain this nominal increase without jumping to the conclusion man is causing it.
We're looking at 0.8 degree Celsius since about 1880-ish. Since 1975, for example, two-thirds of warming has occurred at or around 0.15-.20 degrees celsius per decade.
A global change of one degree is important because it takes massive quantities of heat to warm land, oceans, the atmosphere, etc. All is took was a one to two degree change to sent the planet into the Little Ice Age. A five degree drop resulted in the vast majority of North America under a copious amounts of ice 20,000 years ago.
One degree in 100 years. That's what we have, whether or not man is causing it. In the past 18 years, we've not had warming, it has been getting cooler. If it continues on the current trend, we won't be having a 1 degree increase for the century. There are dozens of factors other than the greenhouse ceiling. There is the Sun and sunspot activity. There are volcanic eruptions. Solar flares. Not to mention all the assorted cyclical climate patterns we have on Earth.
The warnings about current warming trends existed YEARS before Mann’s hockey stick.Actually, they didn't. In the 1960s and 70s, I vividly recall being warned we were heading into the next ice age. In the 80s, the "crisis" was the ozone layer, because they observed a hole in it at the poles. As it turned out, man wasn't blowing a hole in the ozone layer, it just naturally doesn't form at the poles and the "hole" is normal. Of course this was after the 'chicken little' policies of the day had cost capitalists billions of dollars reformulating products and updating production.
It's undoubtedly true there were some predictions about an ice age in the 1970s, but those warnings compared to today are night and day. There was tiny amount of scientific speculation based on glacial cycles and some of slight cooling that occurred as result of air pollution blocking sunlight. We didn't have copious amounts of data or papers being published back them. We had no UN commissions, no institutions, etc. You could have found more of a consensus on a sighting of Lindbergh baby.
Today, there's a scientific consensus, supported by national academies and the major scientific institutions around the world, including the CIA and US military, which all get behind the assembled data that temperature is increasing, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary, and it will only get worse until we decrease emissions. I really don't understand why this causes cognitive dissonance among certain ideological segments of our population. It's not even a big deal, it can be dealt with.
Hogwash. You're now citing "UN commissions" as if they are some kind of scientific authority. These are diplomats, not scientists. Same with the CIA or military. No one is "getting behind" global warming anymore. It's dead. It's cognitive dissonance to continue insisting man is causing some catastrophic overheating. It's just not happening.
It's silly to even think man is capable of emitting too much CO2. If you took all the human-made emissions from all of history, and all human-made emissions man of the future will create for the next 100k years, you will have approximately the equivalent to ONE major volcanic eruption. Now, we have a major volcanic eruption about once every decade. This has been happening forever. With a single volcanic eruption, there is more CO2 dispersed than man has produced since the Industrial Revolution.
personally think the problem is fundamentalist wackos. Whenever you abandon God and adopt a religious faith in science, there are problems society can't deal with. Like people believing everything science theorizes as absolute truth and gospel. Because this becomes their convicted faith, they can't seem to understand that science is often times wrong about things. When science replaces God, science becomes infallible and perfect.
Science doesn't require faith or belief, quite the contrary. Since deals with and studies natural phenomena in the observable universe, so it cannot confirm or deny the existence of God if that makes sense. I think about half of scientists claim a religious affiliation of some sort.
People tend to get confused when a scientist says he/she believes in X or Y hypothesis or theory. What they mean is that he/she accepts X or Y idea, that he/she thinks said scientific idea is the most accurate bases on the evidence. Scientific ideas are accepted and rejected based on the assembled evidence for them or again them. Belief, faith, dogma, etc. aren't part of the scientific method in any capacity.
Oh you need to talk with Joe then, he just told me that Evolution disproves the God of Abraham. And you need to check your own self as well, here you are presenting science to support your INSISTENCE there is man made global warming. So if science doesn't require faith and belief, why do you have so much faith and belief in this science? Can't it be wrong?
If we are going to say that science isn't a belief, dogma, faith, etc. We must admit that science does not 'conclude things as fact.' Because as soon as science has done this, there is no more science, there is only faith and belief in your conclusion. You see, it is MAN who concludes things as fact.' This is based on faith and belief in the science. But the science never concludes.
The chaotic nature of weather means that we can’t extrapolate a conclusion from one single data set. The temperature in one part of the planet at any one time is simply the weather, and tell us nothing about overall climate, much less climate change on a global level.
I’ve never read any scientists claim that CO2 was the sole mitigating factor in controlling global temperature in the ocean/atmosphere climate system. It’s a massive and complex system, subject to various forces. Anthropocentric global warming simply says that CO2 is has been the primary driver of warming over the past century. This hasn't been an incremental increase, nor should we expect it to occur this way.
Also, there has been work done to reconstruct the solar irradiance record over the past hundred years. We haven't seen an increase in solar irradiance sice 1940. Most of this work was carried out by the Max Place Institute. The reconstruction does demonstrate an increase over the first part of the century from 1900-1940. It's still not enough to explain all the warming from those years, though. You can view this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperatures, and the variations the have contributed to climate change thus far.
There is a scientific consensus among the leading science academies. The science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom have arrived at a consensus. We also have the US military which views climate change as the greatest national security threat facing the country. There also a ton of other American and international science academies and institutions.
Here:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Hey Sparky, can you find one (1) single experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature?
It’s definitely true that CO2 has increased in the past, especially in the glacial/interglacial periods. During this period of time, CO2 has increased and decreased by 100ppm, from roughly 180-330ppm. These increases occurred over a 400,000 year period. This was roughly 5,000-20,000 years depending on the glacial cycle.
However, with that being said, Sparky, we’ve seen an increase of 100ppm in 150 years. Click here to look at the comparison between slow glacial termination vs the industrial revolution.
When scientists analyzed the isotopes of the carbon/oxygen atoms comprising the atmospheric CO2, which is similar to carbon dating, they determined a human fingerprint of sorts. They discovered old carbon which is a result of fossil fuel deposits, then combined with newer oxygen found in the air nowadays. The present and continued combustion of hydrocarbons is definitely the source of increasing CO2 levels.