Less than half of all published scientists agree with global warming Options

[impala454]

The fluctuations of the little ice age were small compared to the increases we're seeing now. Not to mention that indications point that it was more of a regional effect moreso than a global one.

awesome graph, so if our industrial age was the culprit, how the hell did the temperatures go up from ~1900-1940 or so, then go down from 1940-1960 or so, then back up?

a google search only reveals conservative sites reporting this

uh... DUH... you think the treehuggers want to release info like this?

[impala454]

A good argument I've heard is that they say the temperature has risen a few degrees over the past 100 years. Well excuse me if I'm skeptical of the accuracy of temperature readings taken in 1907.

yeah no crap... not to mention people comparing the temperatures they get from 500 year old tree rings, and comparing that data to temperatures taken from a thermometer today (like pebkac's graph above?)... yeah that's a real scientific comparison.

[Inferia]

yeah no crap... not to mention people comparing the temperatures they get from 500 year old tree rings, and comparing that data to temperatures taken from a thermometer today (like pebkac's graph above?)... yeah that's a real scientific comparison.

Actually, lots of science is done like this. We work with what we have.

[impala454]

it doesn't have to be that way in this case. they could just take more recent tree ring samples and compare the data that way. besides, we're talking about measurements over 10s, 100s, 1000s of years being accurate to within a tenth of a degree?!

[Inferia]

Do you not see the end of the graph? Those are of the more recent tree ring samples. These are mathematical extrapolations, if there are minute changes in nature in response to minute changes in temperature, it would be reflect in the tree rings. Just because the samples are old doesn't mean it's in accurate, the science is still new. And if you think about it, what exactly make today's temperature more accurate? Just the devices we use to measure it. Similarly here, we're using better devices to measure the change in tree rings in response to the change in temperature. And that, sir, is science.

[impala454]

here's some interesting data. temperature extremes data from the NCDC:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/global...es.html#highpre

highest recorded temperatures:
Africa, El Azizia, Libya, 9/13/1922: 136
North America, Death Valley, CA 6/10/1913: 134
Asia, Tirat Tsvi, Israel 7/22/1942: 129
Australia, Cloncurry, Queensland 1/16/1889: 128
Europe, Seville, Spain 8/4/1881: 122
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina 12/11/1905: 120
Oceania, Tuguegarao, Philippines 4/29/1912: 108
Antarctica, Vanda Station, Scott Coast 1/5/1974: 59 (haha)

average year for a high temperature record: 1917

lowest recorded temperatures:
Antarctica, Vostok 7/21/1983: -129
Asia, Oimekon, Russia 2/6/1933: -90
Greenland, Northice 1/9/1954: -87
North America, Snag, Yukon, Canada 2/3/1947: -81
South America, Sarmiento, Argentina 6/1/1907: -11
Australia, Charlotte Pass, NSW 6/29/1994: -9
Oceania, Mauna Kea Observatory, HI 5/17/1979: 12

average year for a low temperature record: 1956

[impala454]

Do you not see the end of the graph? Those are of the more recent tree ring samples. These are mathematical extrapolations, if there are minute changes in nature in response to minute changes in temperature, it would be reflect in the tree rings. Just because the samples are old doesn't mean it's in accurate, the science is still new. And if you think about it, what exactly make today's temperature more accurate? Just the devices we use to measure it. Similarly here, we're using devices to measure the change in tree rings in response to the change in temperature. And that, sir, is science.

so, you think a tree ring sample taken vs a modern day thermometer will be accurate to each other within a 1/10th of a degree?

and yeah, if you look at the tree ring sample data thats the newest, it correlates almost exactly w/the previous data. its the red data that goes up (which is thermometers, not tree ring data)

[Inferia]

so, you think a tree ring sample taken vs a modern day thermometer will be accurate to each other within a 1/10th of a degree?

and yeah, if you look at the tree ring sample data thats the newest, it correlates almost exactly w/the previous data. its the red data that goes up (which is thermometers, not tree ring data)

Well, I don't do research in this field, but I trust the scientist in this field to know what their science. And considering much of the science done in this country is through federal grants, I take it they know at least somewhat they're doing.

Yes, if you look at the newest possible tree ring data, it correlates closely with the thermometer data. How I would interpret this data is that, one, tree ring analysis is a fairly accurate way of determining the earth's temperature since newest possible tree ring follows similar trend to that of readings from thermometer. Another important piece of information this data shows is that the tree ring analysis shows that there's a slight decline in temperature to roughly around the 1900s, where there is a sudden and steady incline of temperature. From this, one reasonable explanation could be that the rise in temperature is because of the industrial revolution that occurred across the world (or rather the northern hemisphere) around the 1800s and 1900s. Another explanation could be that this data maybe insufficient, or not complete. The earth's temperature goes up and down all the time, so it maybe just fluke. And if you look at the error bars (in gray), they are fairly large before the 1500's. So we could be just reading newer samples more accurately. And that's why people look at other things as well, such as ice burg melting, change in bird migration, etc.

Climate change is a complicated matter. It effects a multitude of natural occurrences that is fairly difficult to pattern. I don't know if scientist know enough right now to actually say confidently that what we are putting into the earth is a direct effect to these changes. However, I do believe continue living the way we do is unsustainable. I'm not saying that we should stop doing what we do because maybe somehow we can save a tree somewhere. I am saying though, we should understand more of how much we are effecting this planet. Traditional thinking may tell us that using a mug saves more energy (and somehow the environment). But it maybe that people break mugs all the time and the energy to make more than one mug per person per life time maybe much much higher than to plant renewable forests and make paper cups out of them. So should we then make mugs that are a) unbreakable, recyclable, c) don't make them, and use paper cups that cost less energy to make and recycle those cups? It is these kinds of things I do think we should look into. There's nothing wrong with questioning the way we live.

[impala454]

From this, one reasonable explanation could be that the rise in temperature is because of the industrial revolution that occurred across the world (or rather the northern hemisphere) around the 1800s and 1900s. Another explanation could be that this data maybe insufficient. The earth's temperature goes up and down all the time, so it maybe just fluke. That's why people look at other things as well.

that's exactly right, its pretty uncertain whether this is due to us or just the earth's natural cycle. is the article in the OP not so surprising then?

[Inferia]

that's exactly right, its pretty uncertain whether this is due to us or just the earth's natural cycle. is the article in the OP not so surprising then?

Yes, politics and science are two very different things. The consensus I think is that either what we're doing right now is not making that much of an effect on the environment, or what we're doing right now is harming the environment. I don't believe there are many out there who thinks what we're doing right now is actually improving the environment. So what exactly is the harm to play the conservative route and conserve a little?

[Dogmeat]

WHATEVER AL GORE SAYS IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH! HE KNOWS EVERYTHING AND WILL SAVE THE PLANET IF WE VOTE FOR HIM BECAUSE HE KNOWS EVERYTHING!

[impala454]

Yes, politics and science are two very different things. The consensus I think is that either what we're doing right now is not making that much of an effect on the environment, or what we're doing right now is harming the environment. I don't believe there are many out there who thinks what we're doing right now is actually improving the environment. So what exactly is the harm to play the conservative route and conserve a little?

tons of money down the drain

[Dogmeat]

AL GORE KNOWS EVERYTHING!!!! HOW DARE YOU ALL DENOUNCE AL GORE!!!! THE WORLD IS GOING TO KILL YOU FOR THIS!!!!!

[Spectatrix]

Dogmeat, shut up. Nobody's talking about Al Gore.

[Dogmeat]

AL

Dogmeat, shut up. Nobody's talking about Al Gore.

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND WILL KILL US ALL AND DESTROY THE PLANET UNLESS WE ELECT AL GORE TO SAVE THE PLANET!!!!!! AL GORE IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN SAVE US!@!!!! NOT EVEN GOD CAN SAVE US!@!!! VOTE AL GOEREW!!!!