Originally posted by Skyfloating
Where did all the Global Warming defenders go?
Probably just tired of going in circles, and having to debunk the same myths over and over instead of ever moving forward with a constructive
But what the hey, I need a break from all the nuclear disaster...
So to start -
My point? Well, the pictures speak for themselves dont they?
Nope. Not at all. Your 3 graphs are at best incredibly misleading and at worst downright dishonest. The first graph is by far the most credible, but
it is only a regional data set for Greenland and
it stops 95 years ago. You'll notice the temperature on this chart changes upwards of 4
degrees in the span of only a few decades. If this was happening all over the planet instead of just Greenland that would be some SERIOUS
Showing this chart to try to trivialize modern warming is cherry-picking at it's finest I'm afraid (not blaming you, but I have no doubt that
whatever "skeptic" website you got this graph from - that was their
For example let's fill in the last 95 years. You can go to the GISS website
and get the missing
data and see where we're at today in Greenland. 95 years ago was 1916, so take a base period centered around that date, e.g. 1901-1931, and compare
it to the latest available data. Here's how it comes out:
temperature anomaly is +0.67C
, but look at Greenland. It is all but covered in deep maroon, meaning the temperature there is
above what it was 95 years ago. So if you apply that to your original graph - here's how it would look now:
(i.e. the temperature is right off the chart, but I'm not going to pull an Al Gore and bust out the scissor lift lol)
As for the other two graphs - the first is a screenshot from The Great Global Warming Swindle, a highly dubious film that contained loads of errors
and has been thoroughly debunked numerous times. See for example here
That particular graph is just another fine case of the films many deceptions. It depicts an "IPCC chart" showing the Medieval Warm Period to be
warmer than "NOW". But what they don't point out is that first of all that graph is not "now", it is from 1990. This is important because the
work done at the time was mainly based only on European temperature reconstructions, and the IPCC cautioned the data was still unclear and likely
incomplete. Since then it has been updated numerous times (with those updates still coming well before the film ever aired) and meanwhile global
temperatures have also continued to climb higher. You can watch a video with climate scientists commenting on that Global Warming Swindle graph
Also, a full body of data on paleoclimatic reconstructions can be found at this link
Those tell a much more complete (and different) story than the swindlers of The Great Global Warming Swindle want you to see. For example:
So again, I don't know where you got that screenshot from but all it shows is more cherry-picking, and outright disinformation - the hallmark of the
so-called climate "skeptics" of the deny-o-sphere (these people get labeled deniers because they are a complete insult to true
And as for the last graph...well, let's just put it this way: please show me the peer-reviewed journal that cartoon appears in
But let me use it actually to illustrate a very important point:
You keep referring to these charts as evidence that past climate change has always been natural before (and indeed, of course it has - how else was it
supposed to be unnatural
when cars and factories weren't around??). That observation really has no bearing on whether humans can affect
But look -
Even your skeptic chart points to all the times in the past when temperature was affected by changes in solar and volcanic activity. So if these
skeptics feel confident enough to announce how much solar irradiation and volcanoes affected climate 4000 years ago
, what makes you think they
suddenly have no idea how to calculate these factors now??
The fact is scientists study them very
closely. They know more about volcanoes and solar activity today than they ever have. And all sorts of
studies have been done integrating natural forcings into the overall climate picture. These studies show that of course natural forcings play a role.
But none of them
have been able to complete the climate puzzle without attributing a very significant portion to anthropogenic sources:
Graph from here
So maybe this is the "no other possibility" your global warming proponent friend was referring to? Because nobody's saying there can't
any other possibilities, it's just that no one has been able to produce a satisfactory one. The role of the Sun
has been studied
much more extensively than just
looking at it and going "it's really big, and it feels warmer when it's sunny outside". I mean come on - if this is the amount of respect you have
for modern day science then no wonder you think it's all a big sham.
But most importantly, here's the absolutely critical part that this entire line of thinking detracts from - and what the so-called skeptics
deliberately want you to miss out on:
Man made warming is not a guess. It's not something Al Gore came up with himself on the fly to fill in these blanks.
Man made warming - i.e. radiative forcing induced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases like CO2 - is based on physics that are 150 years old. Physics
that are so well understood at this point that children use them for their science fair
. Furthermore, before Al Gore, before the IPCC, before carbon taxes and all that junk - there was a Nobel-prize winning chemist named
Svante Arrhenius who wrote a paper in 1896
proclaiming that more CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere would lead to a warming effect. You can read
the original paper here
All that's happened in the 115 years since then is precisely what Arrhenius predicted. Meanwhile in the last 35 years, as GHG emissions have begun to
intensify - temperatures have skyrocketed while solar activity has in fact gone down.
So this, along with the many other independent lines of evidence
is why there is a HUGE
consensus (it's 97% actually
) amongst the scientific establishment on man
made global warming. Funnily enough the other 3%, as I've repeatedly pointed out on
, always seem to turn out on the payroll of some huge fossil fuel company
anti-environmental regulation lobby group.
So no matter how much people around here want to continue to ignore it - the facts are clear that there is a MASSIVE denial and disinformation
campaign out there on global warming that knows they can't win the scientific fight, so instead they've put all their energy into the public forum.
This especially means the internet, so when you do things like google "temperature 10 000 years" you're more than likely to land on one of their
websites, and in this case no - it's very likely the graphs do not speak for themselves - but that's exactly what they want you to think anyway.
The thing is climate science is a very complicated subject, sometimes even for the scientists themselves. So if you try to figure it all out yourself
by automatically reaching for the easiest, most superficial answers like "the Sun is warm" you end up falling right in the lap of the people who are
actually trying to confuse you the most about it.