If you had a Ph.D., as I do, you too might stay away from 8th grade science. The trouble with 8th grade science is that it's taught to people without the resources to evaluate what they're told by teachers who are often similarly disadvantaged. Those who write the curricula are often political hacks who substitute fashion for knowledge. So the blind lead the blind. Carlin couldn't, of course, cite the science in his comedy routine, but what he says is not far from the truth. If you're honest, you'll admit that you're sure about man-made global warming only because you've heard others say the same thing, while those others may be citing you as their authority. Millions of people saying it's so doesn't prove any religious truth; "global warming" is the same.
Many of the leading scientists that have contributed to the IPCC have been labeled "denialists' by certain advocates only because they have doubted some of the alarmist claims by such.
\ See thing is this is the INTERNET and anyone can claim to be anything. I have learnt over the years to discount claims of academic achievement until and unless they are backed by clearly demonstrated academic skills. Skills such as supporting arguments with academic level references etc Strange but I rarely ever see that from the denialist side
I've posted at length about this in other threads. If you're interested in the science, not the politics, it's easy to find on the web. I won't invest hours reciting information readily available elsewhere. Let me turn your question around and ask you to provide scientific evidence for your position. If, as you claim, it represents the scientific consensus, it should be easy to find. But don't cite statements by politicians or political people. Only real science. Also, no "proof" derived from statistical models. As someone who spent years constructing statistical models for a living, I can assure you that by tweaking the assumptions, models can "prove" almost anything.
Having spent years on various political boards, I've become familiar with a trick used by leftists - wear out opponents by demanding they spend countless hours doing research, in effect writing long scholarly articles, only to reject the conclusions anyway. There's always another quibble. Of course, you feel no such responsibility yourself. You KNOW you're right, so evidence and analysis are unnecessary for you. You put your feet up and laugh while demanding more and more research which you know you'll reject no matter what. I won't permit myself to be abused in that way. The science disproves your political hypothesis. If you say otherwise, then YOU prove it. You demand that the whole economy be handed over to politicians (what it's really all about) and a socialist state established so that the politicians can "save" us from the threat of global warming. I do give you credit for sophistication - people seeking political power grabs usually use wars or similar external threats as their excuse. There's novelty in conning ordinary people into fighting against their own self-interest by destroying the economic foundation of their historically unprecedented freedom and prosperity.
It is interesting to watch people attempt to place events that transpire over hundreds of years into the context of decades. The climate is changing....just as it always has. The only real difference being this time we know it and cannot move away....so we need to adapt.
This is all you need to know right here: In 1927 there was about 2 Billion people in the world. In 2011 there was an estimated 7 billion. That's 5 billion more people in the world just in the past 84 years using a lot more energy than was used in 1927. News flash, it's going to get bigger. If humans are causing global warming, then just give it up, because there is nothing we can do other than start killing people. If you want to lead that mission, it's all on you. End of story. Goodnight.
Neither do I but I am not the one claiming a PHD. What I would like to see is that one of the denialists has actually read some science and that means quoting a source that you think is valid - - - Updated - - - Yes but ;like underpants it does not change by itself - there is and always has been a driver for change. I believe that driver is the man made CO2 added to the atmosphere - any alternative will be considered
It may very well be that Human impacts have effected the "Speed" of this change, as the data does indeed show some level of interference. The endless debate on this aspect of what is happening gets in the way of dealing with the fact that it IS. I honestly do not much care about something I cannot do anything about....I prefer to deal with realities I can effect.
I would like to see a true believer that does not rely on a cartoonists advocacy website for their information. Now, many "denialists" are scientists that have contributed to the IPCC. Are you now saying the IPCC is invalid because of that?
Here is some real science which someone with a PhD should be able to understand. It's a little dated, but the basic methodology is still valid, and he didn't need a computer to figure it out. http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
I dont believe you have a phd in anything useful, certianly nothing science related, any one with a minimum of science smarts could understand the basic science at work and they certianly wouldn't be ranting about conspiracies
Please send a stamped self-addressed envelop and I'll mail you copy of my diploma. Otherwise, admit that my education has nothing to do with your dedication to the secular religion of Global Warming. Were I to spend the hours of research you demand, producing a list of scholarly citations, we both know that as a religious acolyte you would reject the results anyway. But if you believe there's a scientific foundation for your faith, I'd be interested to see it.
1896? More than "a little dated." Atmospheric phenomena may be a bit more complex than imagined then. Here's something straightforward for you to think about. Remember Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth"? In it, he shows a chart of global temperatures and CO2 concentrations going back about 600,000 years, derived from ancient bubbles in antarctic ice. The chart rises and falls in great waves which may last tens of thousands of years. There were long periods when the earth was far warmer than it is now. How does your religion explain the fact that the earth was warm so often and so long before the advent of human civilization and even before the advent of homo sapiens? How does your religion explain the fact that temperatures have fallen for long periods as well as rising? Don't these long waves of rising and falling temperatures suggest something other than human agency as the cause? Something such as solar activity or slight variations in the rotation of the earth on its axis? Another point - Gore's chart shows CO2 rising and falling with temperature, as expected, except for the last few decades. Gore pointed out the recent and unprecedented rise in CO2, a rise far greater than the accompanying rise in temperature. Gore's illogical conclusion was that nature was somehow saving up for an explosive rise in temperature which would happen any day now, but his own data contradicted him, as well as what's happened since his film. The data refute the idea that temperature is directly proportional to, and determined by, CO2. Arctic ice is actually increasing - see http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/ So what's it all about? Politics, not science. Throughout history, would-be leaders have used threats and crises to justify their power. They strike a bargain with the populace: cede your freedom to me, and I'll save you from disaster. Usually the threat has been external, such as an enemy nation. But modern liberals don't like war, even as they lust for power. Their response is to inflate supposed threats such as global warming so that their seizure of power looks justified. To combat global warming, liberals demand no less than near-total control over the economy and how people live. What a heaven-sent opportunity! Sell the public on "global warming" to rule the world. Do you think it's mere coincidence that global warming advocates are almost always Statists, clamoring for maximum intervention by the state in human affairs? - - - Updated - - - And there's your own conspiracy theory, as well as your own vanity.
Actually, it's not that complex. Predicting the atmospheric phenomena at any particular point in space and time is difficult only because of the number of variables involved, not the processes that drive them. The simple fact that complex molecules like CO2 retain heat in the atmosphere has been known for over 100 years and I doubt you have anything that refutes it. Milankovitch cycles are sufficient to explain changes in climate over the last few million years, but they cannot explain a 1°C increase in the last century. Can you? Do you understand what thermal inertia is and why climate is measured over 30 years instead of annually? Even at 9,000 cubic kilometers, Arctic sea ice in 2013 was still below anything prior to 2009. When 2012 was a record low for Arctic sea ice, an increase in 2013 was not unexpected. It's called "regression toward the mean", and the mean is still decreasing. In case you still think that Arctic ice is recovering, look at this.
No one disputes that there has been a recent temperature increase. As I pointed out, there is ample historical precedent for such increases, and more, without human intervention. The dispute is over the contribution of human activity. How much of the increase is man-made? Is there anything we can do to control the increase? I don't pretend to understand all the factors contributing to temperature, and how they interact. But the fact that the earth has been warmer than it is now many times before suggests that what we see now is within the boundaries of normal variation, and is still far from reaching significance. In most sciences, not only "climate science," laboratory research is often misleading because it oversimplifies complex natural systems. The results may apply only to the artificial situation created in the lab. Lab work on the thermal effects of CO2 may suffer from this flaw. I do not say it's impossible human beings could be significant contributors to warming. I do say that there is as yet no evidence for this that meets stringent criteria. Without such evidence, the massive disruption of human civilization is unwarranted. I understand that certain people will gain money and power from the disruption, but that's hardly compelling for the rest of us. P.S. Thanks for the correction re arctic ice.
Another issue, and something your graph cannot show, is that due to natural variability some say the cycles are around 60-70 years for a warming/cooling trend (not shown in Mann's hockey stick and where 'hide the decline' came from). There were reports of open ice in the Arctic during past forays into the Arctic before we started actual measurements. The graph you show may be too short to tell us anything important other than it has warmed in the last 30 or so years. As far as temperature is concerned, there was a cooling trend from the late 40's to the mid 70's. There may be other cycles that are centuries long. We just don't know. We do know that at some point in time, this interglacial will probably come to an end and plunge us into another 90 thousand years of glacier building. Even that has changed. Glaciation only used to last around 40 thousand years.
Which is nonsense. We have plenty of temperature series that go back hundreds of years with decent granularity. None of them show a 60-70 year cycle. We also have written history going back, oh, 10,000 years or so. We have no reports from contemporary observers that would correlate to a 60-70 year cycle. You seem to think that the world could have experienced warming as it is now, and nobody would have noticed it enough to write it down.
Wrong, you only have proxy data that varies from type to location. You have no series of Arctic ice. Of course they wrote it down, it was called the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age but they did not have the measures we have today and relatively recently.
Climate science does not dispute that climate changes or that temperatures have been warmer than they are today. It's not the magnitude of the temperature that is the concern but rather how quickly it is changing. Multiple studies show that the current rate of warming is unprecedented in the last few thousand years. Climate does not depend on laboratory research any more than it depends on Mann's hockey stick graph. Besides surface temperature reconstructions, there are the changes in global ice volumes, changes in growing seasons, acceleration in sea level changes, shifts in plant coverage, changes in the acidity of the oceans, etc. The only variable which explains all of these is the increase in atmospheric CO2, and the only explanation for that is human emissions.
Well, that clears something up since the last thousand years clearly predate the increase in CO2. What you are saying then is that the current temperature increase is not significantly different than before the increase in CO2.
Which, taken as a group, provide a fairly good picture of temperature trends. We also have no historical accounts of an ice-free Arctic. Not only do we have plenty of proxy data to show that those were regional, not global, phenomena, but those are not "60-70 year cycles".
