Global Warming in the last 10 000 years

Where did all the Global Warming defenders go? Just a few years ago this site was full of them.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by lonegurkha


I think that you will find that the studies showed that the world was heating up not why

.The op has it correct the sun is going through a warming phase and is responsible for the warming not CO2,

Actually, the OP is only speculating as to the sun being the 'cause'. Stating an opinion and dressing it as fact, as you just have, while denying information you disagree with out-of-hand doesn't a scientifically sound observation make.

I think there is a lot of interesting info on both 'sides' of this debate, and it's annoying to me when those on either' side insult the debate by such over-the-top dismissals.

Saying 'it's all the sun' without even providing credible information to verify is as baseless as saying 'it's all man made'.

Please allow me to supply this

www.dakotavoice.com...

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Actually, the OP is only speculating as to the sun being the 'cause'. Stating an opinion and dressing it as fact, as you just have, while denying information you disagree with out-of-hand doesn't a scientifically sound observation make.

I think there is a lot of interesting info on both 'sides' of this debate, and it's annoying to me when those on either' side insult the debate by such over-the-top dismissals.

Saying 'it's all the sun' without even providing credible information to verify is as baseless as saying 'it's all man made'.

Im saying: The sun influences our climate and how warm it is. Am I wrong?

Isnt there more sun in the summer?

Dont we feel it getting warmer when the sun comes out behind the clouds?

And when the sun comes up in the morning?

Am I insane for believing the sun is connected to warmth?

reply to post by Skyfloating


I'll echo what you said in one of your other threads..., 'Seems pretty clear to me'.

Damn those actual, multiple-sourced, historical ice core readings!

Cheers

just noticed this thread, giid stuff, shows how its just natural, like i said all along, but i have a different theory to the rising sea levels, I've made a thread of it here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

take a look, its a little different tho'

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Im not saying that humans cant effect their environment. The analogy is meant to show that the sun, owing to its size, is more likely to effect the climate or have a stronger influence.

edit on 15-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Yes. I understand that, as I've stated several times now.. My point is that the sun, regardless of it's size, is quite a good bit further from the earth than all the people who live on it. Therefore, couldn't those people effect it quite significantly at such a close proximity?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Yes. I understand that, as I've stated several times now.. My point is that the sun, regardless of it's size, is quite a good bit further from the earth than all the people who live on it. Therefore, couldn't those people effect it quite significantly at such a close proximity?

Sure they could. But let me ask you this: When its winter do you feel warmer when the sun comes out or when people come out?

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 discussion.

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 bizness...

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 intent).

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:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5aff906fc20b.gif[/atsimg]


The global temperature anomaly is +0.67C, but look at Greenland. It is all but covered in deep maroon, meaning the temperature there is over 4C above what it was 95 years ago. So if you apply that to your original graph - here's how it would look now:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a7cd5d053fb.jpg[/atsimg]

(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 or 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 here.


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 skeptics everywhere).


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 climate now.

But look -

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ab5c8bc5105a.jpg[/atsimg]

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:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7745da43fdcd.jpg[/atsimg]

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 be 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 projects. 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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0943566b2fef.gif[/atsimg]

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 ATS, always seem to turn out on the payroll of some huge fossil fuel company or 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.