Global Warming
By Joey - Posted on May 7th, 2007
Tagged: Climate Change
I saw a program that showed evidence that warm temperatures always precede rises in CO2 and not the other way around.
Let's find this Temp vs. CO2 data.
Otherwise, what's the evidence for long-term global warming? (not opinionated, just seeking the actual evidence, not interested in politics on this one)
And no, I'm not going to assume global warming exist just because a bunch of people are marching militantly in this direction,
Joey
Login to post comments
Here is a graph. We need better resolution to see if CO2 leads or lags. The data sources are indicated.
I would like to immediately point out an evident periodicity and that we are long overdue for a real warming trend.
js
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
Jonathan,
Looks like we can get all the data. We can look at the variance in the lag/lead with time.
I might have time tonight.
JS
Here's an article on the lag time. The analysis given does not make sense to me but the lag times have been analyzed. Temperatures rise first for about 800 years followed by CO2 levels.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
js
Here is a voice of reason on this hysterical panic over a few tenths of a degree.
Freedom, not climate, is at risk by Valcav Klaus
JS
Kilimanjaro's shrinking snow not sign of warming
So, some ice can melt via CO2 and other ice can melt via photons. . .
LINK
I think we know nothing about how ice melts.
JS
From an article in USA Today (link):
Joey,
Was the program you watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?
If so, the following web site seems to be a fairly detailed rebuttle of the film: link
About the 800-year lag, it cites the same web site you did with this summary explanation:
"...historical warm-up periods begin via some variable event that starts a warming cycle. (e.g. Milankovitch changes in the earth's orbit that change the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the northern hemisphere, a human induced spike in carbon dioxide concentrations, etc.) This initial warming triggers a chain reaction/feedback release of carbon dioxide (blue line in the above chart) and methane (red line in the above chart) from the earth's oceans, which then drives the rest of the warm-up cycle..."
As much as I appreciate Mr Klaus (he is a somewhat known figure in europe), and tend to agree with his views re: freedom, hysteria, etc, i am not sure he would know fact from fiction when it comes to science, viz:
"...irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures ..."
Exactly what is a 0.6% temperature increase? Kelvin, Fahrenheit, Celsius?
In the US, where weather records have been more reliable than elsewhere, 20th-century temperature went up by only 0.3C. AccuWeather, a worldwide meteorological service, reckons world temperature rose by 0.45C. The US National Climate Data Centre says 0.5C. Any advance on 0.5? The UN went for 0.6C, probably distorted by urban growth near many of the world's fast-disappearing temperature stations.
From: Climate caos? Don't believe it
js
Joey, the link in your post tells a riveting tale. I am amazed. Now, SOMEone is lying, either him or them.
I just find it hard to believe that so many scientists would succumb to mass hysteria, but maybe grant money can induce someone to speak in tongues(?) I am well aware that a lot of scientists have little common sense and/or no backbone, but this level of hypocrisy would be astounding. on the other hand, here are my impressions from the pertinent scientific/environmental issues from the last 30 years:
interestingly, to my knowledge, a lot of scientists made nice careers based on misrepresentations (mostly exaggeration of the type "we're all gonna die") in the first three cases. would i believe that this will happen again with global warming? OF COURSE.
However, i think it simply indecent to continue spewing CO2 crap into the atmosphere. it is like shitting where you eat. global warming or not, we should clamp down on emissions.
This article makes claims that the use of Canadian fjord sediment is most stable and very telling about climate cycles, especially that they correlate well with sunspot activity.
Read the sunspots
Woo, there is Al Gore's hockey stick - right near year 0.
js
Here is a simple summary of work that appears to refute Al Gore's calims regarding global warming.
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
js
BBC News article: link
journal article: link
fyi
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
looky: some more dissent from a fairly big thinker - i actually bookmarked that page, it is so lucid. have a read
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf
excerpt: "My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do..."
JM,
Yeah, this will be interesting. Seems we will have to wait until April to see this.
The Catholic Church has long had a moral teaching on prudent stewardship w/r/t creation.
Good of PBXVI to provide some clarity at this point.
js