Global Warming: Fact or Farce

[yossarian22]

A suprisingly large number of people are claiming that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere are causing massive climate change.
The first major problem is one of the infamous hockey stick graph

which correlates the CO2 in the atmosphere to global temperatures. This graph cleary shows a relation between the two, but this graph is broken.
A group of people studied the hockey stick graph and found out that tree rings were used as temperature measurements, which is never normally used. They also found that the only way to recreate the graph was to use skewed methods of statistics such as overweighting large values, adding some values where data was missing, and using one tree where its best to do dozens. Furthermore, temperatures began to drop off at the 60s while CO2 continued to rise. If anything, current temperature records are far more accurate now then previously. Another fault in the graph comes from ice cores. By examining ice cores, it has been determined that at no point in history has increased CO2 levels preceded increased temperature and at no point in history has decreased CO2 levels preceded decreased temperature. It hopefully is obvious now that this graph is flawed.

Now the next major arguement for global warming is the melting of glaciers. Unfortunately, there are a couple hundred thousand glaciers, and we have only observed a few hundred. Its unknown still why some glaciers are shrinking. It could be an increase in temperature, or an increase in rain. Furthermore, some glaciers are growing, so its doubtful if temperature has to do anything with the melting.

Another arguement is the Antarctic Penninsula is shrinking and Antarctica is warming up. For one thing, Antarctica has been warming since the Holocene Epoch, or over 6000 years. Furthermore, the west coast of Antarctica is growing as well as the sea ice. Several valleys have cooled by .7C, causing ecosystem damage due to the cold.

So why then, are we pouring billions of dollars into theories that have little factual support?

http://www.oftwominds.com/journal/global-warming6-07.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020130074839.htm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/
"Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response" Nature 415: 517-20
From 1986 to 2000 central Antarctic valleys cooled .7C per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold.

edit: I do not deny that the Earth is warming. its been warming since the end of the Holocene Epoch. I just doubt that CO2 has anything to do with temperature rises or that it will cause massive climate change, such as melting the polar ice caps

edit 2: Volstoc temperature record comparing CO2 to temperature. Not how CO2 lags behind temperature

 

[Jaymes]

If you have an actual peer-reviewed scientific article stating that humans haven't caused a global climate change, I'd love to see it, since to my knowledge no such thing exists.

'Global warming' is a misnomer, since some parts of the world won't get warmer, they'll get colder. That doesn't mean that a global climate change isn't happening.

 

[Ðanisty]

That's interesting information. Personally, I'm not convinced that global warming is a problem, much less a problem caused by us.

 

[yossarian22]

If you have an actual peer-reviewed scientific article stating that humans haven't caused a global climate change, I'd love to see it, since to my knowledge no such thing exists.

'Global warming' is a misnomer, since some parts of the world won't get warmer, they'll get colder. That doesn't mean that a global climate change isn't happening.

I can give you a link, but unless you have access to opposing viewpoints database, you won't be able to access it.
http://www.oftwominds.com/journal/gl...rming6-07.html
does have a bibliography which cites scientific sources.

I would like to see a scientific journal that says humans are causing global warming that doesn't used this skewed graph as data

 

[Buttercup]

So why then, are we pouring billions of dollars into theories that have little factual support?

This is one of my favorite topics along with psychology, yossarian22...another subject we have in common.

I don't have time tonight to hit this thread much but I will say that you need more evidence to contradict the huge amounts of data regarding the fact that global warming is real. A blog and two obscure websites aren't enough to convince me that a major change is not happening with mother earth.

Hope to catch up with you later....enjoy!

 

[yossarian22]

This is one of my favorite topics along with psychology, yossarian22...another subject we have in common.

I don't have time tonight to hit this thread much but I will say that you need more evidence to contradict the huge amounts of data regarding the fact that global warming is real. A blog and two obscure websites aren't enough to convince me that a major change is not happening with mother earth.

Hope to catch up with you later....enjoy!

Of course global warming is real. I just don't think its man caused.
I guess I should clarify my stance

 

[Jaymes]

I can give you a link, but unless you have access to opposing viewpoints database, you won't be able to access it.
http://www.oftwominds.com/journal/gl...rming6-07.html
does have a bibliography which cites scientific sources.

I would like to see a scientific journal that says humans are causing global warming that doesn't used this skewed graph as data

Is that the link you provided in your OP? If so, what peer-reviewed journal did it appear in? Hint: Having sources is not the same as appearing in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Are you sure you understand what "peer reviewed journal" means? The data they use is published because it's been verified by many experts, not because it most conveniently explains their point of view. If that chart is used it's because it's valid, and I challenge you to present a peer-reviewed article stating otherwise.

 

[yossarian22]

Is that the link you provided in your OP? If so, what peer-reviewed journal did it appear in? Hint: Having sources is not the same as appearing in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Are you sure you understand what "peer reviewed journal" means? The data they use is published because it's been verified by many experts, not because it most conveniently explains their point of view. If that chart is used it's because it's valid, and I challenge you to present a peer-reviewed article stating otherwise.

That article cites peer reviewed journals. Here is an article that is peer reviewed. It is hosted by opposing viewpoints database, which to my knowledge, is very reliable. In case you don't have an account-
There are other dissenting voices on that matter as well, most notably Canadian researchers Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at Canada's University of Guelph, and Stephen McIntyre. They argue that the hockey-stick graph is based on a flawed statistical method, and their highly technical rebuttal was published in Geophysical Research Letters, the same journal that originally published the hockey-stick interpretation. Incredibly, they found that the same set of data could be interpreted to show a gradual cooling during the 20th century. Summarizing their work in a presentation to the National Academy of Sciences, they noted: "If a group of proxies is selected because they are sensitive to temperature, the simplest way to characterize their dominant pattern is to standardize the scale and calculate the mean." If that is done, they continued, "One notes that the 20th century is unexceptional and, for what it is worth, that there is a downward trend over the 20th century."

Nevertheless, McKitrick and McIntyre did find, in fact, that there has been some warming since 1900. But, importantly, they confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was at least as warm as today, if not warmer. Such findings cast doubt on the claim that only human induced warming could have raised temperatures to their present levels.

http://find.galegroup.com/ips/infom...urce=gale&userGroupName=cupe17751&version=1.0

I now, to use your snooty words, challenge you to provide me a peer reviewd source that contradicts their findings. Peer review is worthless, but that is another debate.

edit: that's link you quoted appears to be broken, but the original is still good

Here is a link to the MM project, which debunked the hockey stick graph and the publications they appeared in.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

 

[Jaymes]

I don't have access to it, and can't read the whole article, so I can't comment on what's actually in it beyond the excerpt you've posted.

That graph does have some problems with it, but according to the latest scientific statement I could find it doesn't affect it enough to make it invalid. For more info, read this summary (presented by the National Research Council), which affirmed a previous report stating humans do indeed have a hand in global warming.

You can also find a list of scientific organizations that support the idea that global warming is caused by human here. I would like to point out that the only dissenting organization is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

 

[yossarian22]

I don't have access to it, and can't read the whole article, so I can't comment on what's actually in it beyond the excerpt you've posted.

That graph does have some problems with it, but according to the latest scientific statement I could find it doesn't affect it enough to make it invalid. For more info, read this summary (presented by the National Research Council), which affirmed a previous report stating humans do indeed have a hand in global warming.

You can also find a list of scientific organizations that support the idea that global warming is caused by human here. I would like to point out that the only dissenting organization is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

your first link sends me to the bibliography of a wikipedia article.

So basically the fact that the CO2 has never preceded a rise in temperature does not invalidate the graph? You cannot recreat that graph without using flawed methods? That the graph used Chinese temperature measurements to back up its claim? THey don't even know how many tens of millions of people died during that era, and you think reliable temperature records came out of there?
That report you showed me basically said "its not our only data"
There is no reliable data from the pre 16th century world. That graph shows you how much statistical noise there is in grey. Furthermore, ice cores drilled in Greenland show that it was at least at warm today 1000 years ago.
It was during the Medieval Warm Period that the Vikings discovered Greenland and made their other remarkable voyages of exploration in the North Atlantic. According to Jared Diamond, professor of geography at the University of California, "Between A.D. 800 and 1300, ice cores tell us that the climate in Greenland was relatively mild, similar to Greenland's weather today or even slightly warmer.... Thus, the Norse reached Greenland during a period good for growing hay and pasturing animals." The mild climatic conditions may have helped Eric the Red, Greenland's discoverer, to market the area to potential settlers. The Groenlendinga Saga records that Eric "called the land, that he had found, Greenland, for he said, that might attract men thither, when the land had a fine name." According to Dr. Philip Stott, professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."
http://find.galegroup.com/ips/infom...urce=gale&userGroupName=cupe17751&version=1.0

edit: i will post that entire article if you want it.

 

[Jaymes]

your first link sends me to the bibliography of a wikipedia article.

Whoops, sorry. I was using the bibliography to find the other source. Here's the correct link, and I'll edit my previous post too.

So basically the fact that the CO2 has never preceded a rise in temperature does not invalidate the graph?

Can you show me anywhere in the article that was stated? Because if it was, I missed it.

You cannot recreat that graph without using flawed methods? That the graph used Chinese temperature measurements to back up its claim?

Source?

THey don't even know how many tens of millions of people died during that era, and you think reliable temperature records came out of there?

This is addressed in the report.

There is no reliable data from the pre 16th century world. That graph shows you how much statistical noise there is in grey. Furthermore, ice cores drilled in Greenland show that it was at least at warm today 1000 years ago.
It was during the Medieval Warm Period that the Vikings discovered Greenland and made their other remarkable voyages of exploration in the North Atlantic. According to Jared Diamond, professor of geography at the University of California, "Between A.D. 800 and 1300, ice cores tell us that the climate in Greenland was relatively mild, similar to Greenland's weather today or even slightly warmer.... Thus, the Norse reached Greenland during a period good for growing hay and pasturing animals." The mild climatic conditions may have helped Eric the Red, Greenland's discoverer, to market the area to potential settlers. The Groenlendinga Saga records that Eric "called the land, that he had found, Greenland, for he said, that might attract men thither, when the land had a fine name." According to Dr. Philip Stott, professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."
http://find.galegroup.com/ips/infom...urce=gale&userGroupName=cupe17751&version=1.0

You seem to be missing the distinction that a climate can change without necessarily getting hotter. Global climate change is a much more accurate label than global warming.

 

[yossarian22]

Whoops, sorry. I was using the bibliography to find the other source. Here's the correct link, and I'll edit my previous post too.
Can you show me anywhere in the article that was stated? Because if it was, I missed it.

its about 1/3 of the way down.

Source?
This is addressed in the report.

What? that doesn't make sense. You ask for a source and say its been addressed by a paper.

You seem to be missing the distinction that a climate can change without necessarily getting hotter. Global climate change is a much more accurate label than global warming.

THe climate has always been changing. Its idiotic to be concerned with global climate change. Look at the ice ages. Further more, I do not dispute the Earth is warming. Its been warming since the end of the last ice age, hence we aren't surrounded by ice. Its the link between CO2 that i doubt.

 

[jonny]

I don't have time tonight to hit this thread much but I will say that you need more evidence to contradict the huge amounts of data regarding the fact that global warming is real. A blog and two obscure websites aren't enough to convince me that a major change is not happening with mother earth.

I agree that global warming is real. The real question is whether or not it was caused by humans and whether or not there is anything we can do to stop it or slow it down.

This is an interesting article by Syun-Ichi Akasofu from the University of Alaska - Fairbanks. His theory is that the earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. From what he's said they still are researching this theory for more information so I don't know that this has been peer reviewed yet, but the idea that the science is settled is nonsense.

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf

 

[Seraphiel]

It doesn't really matter if global warming is real or not real.

If it is real, then there is nothing going to be done about it, because most people in the world will not give up their livestyles and politicians don't want to get unpopular with laying up all kinds of restrictions on companies and people.

If it is not real, well nothing is going to happen anyway.

What we can say is real, is that the climate is changing and that there are going to be rough times ahead with all sort of weather related catastrofies that will cost a lot of money. I think we just have to be inventive and try to live with it.

 

[Ðanisty]

I'm just confused why everyone thinks that climate change is some kind of unnatural phenomenon. It's not as if the climate hasn't changed before.

 

[doppelganger]

I'm just confused why everyone thinks that climate change is some kind of unnatural phenomenon.

"Human caused" is still a natural phenomenon.

It's not as if the climate hasn't changed before.

The model under consideration suggests a rapid acceleration of climate change caused by production of excess "greenhouse gases" (particularly carbon dioxide) from human activities (burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc.).

It's an explanation for what appears to be a significant anomaly in global climate data demonstrating a relatively recent and accelerating trend in elevated global temperature.

As with any scientific debate, the question is not whether it is "true" or not. That's a political question for fools to debate. The question is whether there is an alternative model that better accounts for all the known evidence and data.

 

[Mathematician]

I tend to side with the majority of experts on scientific observations. I'm sure you can find people with PhDs who believe the Earth is flat. There were doctors who said cigarettes didn't cause cancer and CFCs aren't affecting the ozone level -- anyone care to agree with them still?

 

[Yerda]

I'm going to go with the overwhelming (almost embarrassing) wealth of evidence that says climate change is occuring and is being effected by human activity.

 

[Buttercup]

I agree that global warming is real. The real question is whether or not it was caused by humans and whether or not there is anything we can do to stop it or slow it down.

After reading a bit more through the thread I see that the author of the thread clarified his view to state he doesn't think humans have caused the change. *sigh*

Yossarian22, I don't have time this week to post long responses filled with links to websites, studies and peer reviews claiming humans are causing global warming. How about you do the research with the counter view and post your findings here?

There are over 600 million automobiles on the planet at the moment with over 200 million of those in the US. And, cars are just one contributing source.

Do you think it's at all possible for human activity to affect earth's atmosphere?

 

[Yerda]

I do not deny that the Earth is warming...

...I just doubt that CO2 has anything to do with current temperature rises or that it will cause massive climate change, such as melting the polar ice caps

So while you are comfortable that global temperatures are rising, you are hostile to the idea that greenhouse gases (not just CO2 [does anyone know how to get subscript on this?]) are contributing?

In light of the following,

*Human activity is generating a rapid increase in greenhouse gases, CO2 included,

*Atmospheric greenhouse gases absorb infra-red radiation increasing Earth surface temperature (i.e. Greenhouse Effect),

How can you confidently maintain that anthropogenic climate change is not a genuine phenomenon?