Actual graphed temperature data from the University of Alabama (much more telling than that cartoonish infographic)
At best, the warming continues since 1998 but at a snail’s pace (much lower than what the models claim should’ve happened).
The accuracy of the information contained within a book does not reside within the appearance of its cover.
The difference between the chart I posted and the one posted by Ace Dragon is in the limitations of the information presented. The chart I posted displays global average temperatures between 2500bc and 2040ad(projected) while the chart Ace Dragon posted displays only Global Lower Atmosphere temperatures between 1979 and 2015. Technically the chart I posted, while cartoonish, encompasses a greater amount of data both as a whole and from a finite sliver of time.
When you look at the long term pattern of warm and cool periods you can see that if the globe continued a warming trend for the next few hundred years we still would not even hit the highs encountered around 1100bc, at which time there were no earth shattering climate calamities.
This means that even if global warming were a real problem caused by man we would have, at least, a few hundred years to come up with a solution and do something about it. So what is everyone so worried about?
Your chart is basically an infographic and not so much a graph that’s intended to be as accurate as possible.
It doesn’t have any temperature anomaly values to go by on the left side and there’s likely a lot of exaggeration going on as well (graphs that more accurately plot historical values for thousands of years do not exhibit such wild gyrations in ultra smooth parabolic curves).
It accurately labels the warm and cold periods, but the presentation can be quite misleading.
I really don’t see what’s misleading about it. It only needs to show temperature trends over a great deal of time and that is exactly what it does. Personally, and clearly you disagree, I would find your chart misleading because it does not compare the data to long term history. If the question is whether or not man is causing this warming trend with carbon emissions then we would need to compare your recent data with long term historical data so we can see the difference between temperature trends during fossil fuel burning periods, today, and non-fossil fuel burning periods.
The problem I see with your chart, Ace Dragon, is that it only shows recent data. You need some type of control to compare it against and that comes from longer term historical data that is not present in your graph, but is present in the one I posted.
Edit:
Now you see, again, I’m reading a bit more on the subject and I’m coming up with different numbers from different sources. Even though the numbers are a bit different, they agree that the amount of CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels is dwarfed by the amount of CO2 emitted by natural processes.
One of those natural processes involves the ocean which emits far more CO2 than man, but also re-absorbs a lot of that CO2. The theory concerning global warming is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 levels have risen every time the planet has warmed therefore atmospheric CO2 levels must contribute to warming the globe.
However; it seems more apparent that the sun is actually the primary driver of global temperatures. What may actually be happening is that the sun heats up the planet causing the oceans to warm which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere, the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 is temperature dependent so as the planet warms the ocean absorbs less CO2. So instead of CO2 causing the planet to warm, the warming planet causes the natural release of CO2 and it is actually the sun that causes the globe to warm and cool. CO2 is not the cause, but an effect of global warming which is caused by the sun.
When the sun enters its next dormant phase the globe will begin to cool and CO2 levels will drop.
The past 35 years isn’t enough information to tell anything about anything. Not only do you need the largest span of time possible with respect to climate data, but you also need the geological data to put it into context. Then you at least have a base to compare and contrast with.
Look all natural systems default to equilibrium. Look up Emergence Theory. Under equilibrium the climate has a fairly regular pace of change. Things like megavolcanos, asteroid strikes etc. etc. upset said equilibrium and cause more rapid change in the environment in general. This can have an effect on the climate. Since the industrial revolution that pace has greatly exceeded the norm.
The problem is factory farming. We cut down rain forest to plant soy that becomes methane in an ever growing population of livestock. We have upset the equilibrium and the answer is fundamental change. That is probably the proper context of the argument, not bickering over irrelevant information for political purposes.
Again; listen to the researchers if you actually want to know what is happening. The media lies about everything for monetary gain.
So what sides are being taken here:
- atr1337: Climate change is not man related except for our existence, and not recent. In any case it’s not serious because Earth has been hotter. It’s all media hype.
- acedragon: Our models are wrong and global warming isn’t serious?
Aren’t you agreeing?
However, you’re both looking short term. Acedragons graph is a couple pixels on the left of atr1337’s, and atr1337’s is less than a pixel on mine.
Let’s deal with atr1337s graph.
Yup, it does seem a little info-graphicy. Any chance for a source for that image? I’m curious to know how they decided what to use as the definition between ‘hot’ and ‘cold.’ My graph suggests we are at the top of a high temperature region. If you average the data from those thousands of years we have temperature data for, we’re at least a couple degrees above average, even at the low points of atr1337’s graph. The last proper ice age was ~10,000 years ago. I define ice age as ‘ice covered the planet nearly to the poles’ rather than ‘earth was a few degrees colder than it is now’.
The more someone wants to prove global warming is a problem, the shorter term they look. Perhaps because we can only see evidence of our own activities since the industrial revolution, being the relatively recent hundreds of years ago. But we have no idea if the temperature rise we see is due to our own activites, or the natural noise caused by volcanoes, the output of the sun etc.
What’s my opinion:
- We are putting tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, we cannot deny that.
- Temperatures are rising, we cannot deny that
- Our best mathematical models suggest that the two are related using basic thermal equilibrium, we can easily prove this.
I think we should attempt to minimize our impact on the enviornment. Not because it’s causing climate change, but simply because the effect is currently unknown. We don’t want people to start scattering random chemicals in the upper atmosphere because it’s hard to undo and the effect is unknown. Thus we don’t want to put huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere because it’s hard to undo and the effect is unknown.
XKCD is the best webcomic ever. I’ll put two of them here for you:
There’s a whole bunch of papers here on what it means for the Earth as CO2 levels rise
http://www.co2science.org/
They post new papers every week, and they seem to come to the agreement that biosphere productivity will accelerate through the coming century and that the extra CO2 causes physiological changes in plants that will allow them to thrive in a warmer and drier world.
A possible case in point, a few years ago, we had a very dry Summer that also was the hottest on record, but the vast majority of the plant-life here survived unscathed (even the ones more sensitive to hot weather). CO2 levels were closing in at 400 PPM at the time and one of the biggest benefits it provides is vastly increased tolerance of environmental stresses. The local Wheat harvest was also not a complete disaster either despite crippling drought (and was surprising).
I am wondering if the CO2 levels have gotten to the point where some plants see a step up in attributes like growth rates, leaf size, ect… as the trees around here seem to be seeing a higher frequency of seeing saturated bright green areas with larger leaves and stronger growth. I have noticed other possible anomalies, a Clematis plant we have in the front sprang out of dormancy in the middle of a stretch of 100 degree days and a Bradford Pear in the street in front of our house went from sickly looking one year to completely lush the next (surprising since they usually are only able to last just 20 years when planted in Kansas).
The temps don’t have as much to do with it as one might think. It takes more than one point of data to consider the possibility of harm.
At this point we might just compare the current temps to that of times nearing generally tropical conditions. This is however inappropriate for our time because it has occurred so quickly. The fact that temps are not unprecedented is irrelevant and the type of political nonsense one might see in mass media. This is no indication that harm is not afoot. Just because the situation is probably reversible doesn’t mean that our behaviors are not causing a potentially dangerous situation.
I wouldn’t say that the data is in however the real, scientific evidence supports anthropogenic climate change. Cartoons and politically motivated graphs don’t change that. Again; listen to the experts.
The media lies about everything for monetary gain.
The part I put in bold however is exactly what the media is trying to tell viewers (the vast majority of it at least), so you just contradicted yourself by agreeing with them.
I do not believe that the media lies about everything for monetary gain, but the media does embellish, exaggerate, and yes lie for monetary gain. Not everything they say is untrue, but everything they say becomes suspect because some of what they say is, well let’s just say less than accurate shall we.
@sdfgeoff: I do not know if climate change is man-made or not, however; a lot of people seem to believe that it is a fact or virtually a fact when I believe there are some serious shortcomings that should probably be addressed, especially before someone starts trying to geoengineer something they probably know a lot less about than they think.
I believe the media does tend to sensationalize things for ratings so simply relying on the media to give it to you straight is not, in my opinion, the best way to digest your information. Moreover many media outlets disagree on this subject so even if I were to take it straight from the media I’d still be left without any conclusions.
@Blonder: I have no problem listening to the experts, but like the media they don’t fully agree with one another. Moreover the information they give out is often misquoted or reassembled in such a way so as to meet the interests of the divulging party.
As I understand it the slow way to fix the problem, if there is a problem, sucking the CO2 out of the air with improved farming practices that allow the land to absorb said CO2 would take 10-20 years to completely reverse the amount of CO2 man has contributed to the environment. That’s not a very long time and one would have to imagine if CO2 has such a strong effect on the environment then we’d start to feel the effects of cleaning it up much sooner than that 10-20 year mark. With that time frame in mind I think we have plenty of time to think things through, perfect the technology and methods before embarking on a course of action.
The whole thing is very alarmist and I don’t see the need to get all worked up about it. Moreover I don’t see the need to force it on others either. If you believe that climate change is dangerous and something needs to be done about it then by all means do your individual part to remedy the situation to the best of your abilities, but there are those out there who don’t believe it and they really shouldn’t be forced to support an effort they don’t believe in.
If there’s one person that does not believe the CO2 needs to be cleaned up and one person that believes it does need to be cleaned up shouldn’t only the person who believes it needs to be cleaned then do so. If the guy that doesn’t want it cleaned isn’t trying to stop the other guy from cleaning it, why is the guy that wants it cleaned trying to make the other guy clean it?
You want something done you seek help on the project if necessary and if no one is willing to help then the only way it’s going to get done is if you do it yourself.
P.S. The information about the improved farming practices comes from an article I read I believe in the Huffington Post. I don’t have a link right now, but if anyone wants it I may be willing to look for it and supply the link. Basically it said something to the effect that large scale industrial farms are over saturating the soil with things like pesticides, if that soil were not over saturated then it could be able to perform its natural CO2 absorption process. The article stated that the US government predicts that switching those farms over to better practices would reverse the total human CO2 impact within 10 years while China pegged that number at 20 years.
Seems simple enough eh? Apparently poor farming practices are also cited as being a contributor to the dust bowl of the 1930’s in the US.
Here’s a quick example of sensationalism I noticed while reading a few headlines today. The following article talks about what New York City may be like around 2100. It lists a 4.1-5.7 degree increase in average temperatures, up from about 54 degrees Fahrenheit today. An increase in flooding around coastal areas and annual precipitation increasing by perhaps 4-11 percent.
Apocalypse Soon: Future New York City Will Be Hotter, Partially Underwater
The article’s title is includes the phrase ‘Apocalypse Soon.’ Really, it doesn’t sound that bad to me, and even if it sounds bad to you I have to imagine apocalyptic is awfully overblown. I mean, so the coast gets flooded more often, there’s more rain and a few more days with a t-shirt on, that hardly sounds apocalyptic to me.
According to the article the current administration plans to deal with the problem by upgrading the city’s flood protection system and adding additional sand to the coast lines. Honestly, if we can hold off the apocalypse with a few bags of sand I think we’re doing just fine.
@atr1337: The vast majority of the experts do agree. That’s what a consensus is.
There is a difference between pointing out the potential danger of the rate of deforestation and soothsaying.
@Ace: I don’t do that kind of debate.
Telling one what one wants to hear isn’t the same as telling it like it is to the best of ones ability.
An interesting article in the headlines today from Investors Business Daily
"The difference isn’t huge, but the findings of a study show that global warming skeptics score better on climate science questions than those who believe man is causing the planet to warm through the combustion of fossil fuels.
A paper that will appear in the journal Advances in Political Psychology says that, on average, skeptics got 4.5 questions right while the followers of the faith averaged four correct answers. This doesn’t mean skeptics are more informed; it just means they’re not poorly informed, which is what alarmists want us all to believe…"
“Some warm-mongers won’t like what Kahan found. They like to ridicule those who don’t buy into the popular narrative, portraying them as unscientific rubes. Or as Kahan told Fox News, the believers are often ‘screaming’ in skeptics’ faces and telling them that they and everyone they identify with ‘rejects science.’”
My girlfriend said this reminded her of an article she read that said studies found that warming skeptics tend to have a lower carbon footprint than supporters.
It might be worth noting that the questions were all formulated as “climate scientists believe…” Which means that the skeptics might be more informed about what climate scientists think (rather than actually having a better understanding of the underlying science).
As stated in the news article, 4/9 vs 4.5/9 is not a huge difference (what in my opinion is rather worrying is that people on average got less than 50% of the questions correct).
As stated in the article it’s not meant to imply that skeptics are better informed, but that on average they are pretty much equally informed. So the argument that anyone who questions the narrative is not as well informed as those that don’t is inaccurate.
It’s actually a quite common fallacy that ranges from religion and politics to science, the notion that those who do not believe the same as you must be stupid. In reality no one knows everything so no matter who you are you’re pretty much guaranteed to be wrong about a few things. Probably a lot of things actually, but whatever c’est la vie.
There is a difference between knowing and being confident.
The “skeptics” are choosing not to be confident in evidence that justifies it.
Again; at least keep it in context.
I haven’t seen any of the climate scientists either for or against climate change suggest the other’s position is not properly informed or, as the formerly linked article put it, unscientific rubes. Really I only see this type of behavior coming out of the media and those who follow particular media moguls religiously. When someone suggests to me that I listen to the experts and then suggests that one position is stupid that tells me that they’re probably imitating from where they got their information which suggests they got it, not from the experts, but from the media.
What you need to understand about media outlets is that their purpose is not to bring you the fair and unbiased news, but, just like any other corporation out there, to turn a profit. They do so in pretty much the same way any other entertainment company does, by giving their target audience what they want.
I don’t think it should come as any surprise to some, but CNN’s reporting is obviously left leaning while Fox News’ reporting is clearly right leaning. As opposed to common belief this generally has little to do with the parent corporations political views and more to do with the views of their target audience. Essentially they keep their core viewership by telling them what they believe they want to hear.
It’s exactly the same thing Sci-Fy, Comedy Central and TBS do. In order to attract and maintain viewership they create entertaining shows that they believe those viewers want to see. CNN and Fox News are in the same business, they need to compete with Sci-Fy for those viewers and in order to do so they need to make the boring old news more enticing and entertaining. Otherwise they lose viewers to other stations driving their advertising revenue down along with their overall profits and operating budgets.
It’s all about time, each potential viewer only has x amount of time to spend on any given activity. They can spend that time watching CNN, they can spend it watching TBS or they can spend it playing video games. An entertainment corporation needs to compete with all of the other possible things a person could be doing with their time so they sensationalize it. People love explosions, they love hearing about their politicians mistakes and they love hearing about certain doom.
Several documentary channels, such as History and Discovery, were recently in the news being lambasted for their decisions to air fake documentaries. The Discovery Channel, for instance, aired a documentary claiming a pre-historic mega-shark was, in fact, not extinct, but alive and well. Apparently 70% of viewers left this documentary believing this pre-historic beast still roams the oceans simply because they trusted Discovery, but in actuality the entire documentary was made up. The “world renown biologist” featured in the documentary was actually just an actor, although he once played a marine biologist on the movie Free Willy.
National Geographic aired a fake documentary that claimed Mermaids were real and the Navy’s Sonar had been killing them off. People believed it of course simply because it was on NatGeo.
I believe the CEO of Discovery’s response to criticism was essentially, look we’re in the business to make money and people don’t want to hear about real science anymore, it’s boring.
You know, John Stewart cracks me up, he really does, but if you’re getting all of your news from an overblown Saturday Night Live Weekly Update sketch then you probably have a rather skewed view of the world.
I would like to see evidence of the lack of consensus with respect to the experts.
I don’t call anyone “stupid”.
Here’s a study from a skeptical, scientific inquiry.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
All that I can very-frankly say … to all of this … is:
Putting it on a pretty (or, not-so-pretty …) graphic … or a WebComic … does not make it data.
For example … (just considering page #4 of this thread)
- Post #61 uses a sinusoidal graph as its “justifying source of authority,” using it to “justify” two preposterous statements below the graph, and two “insignificant, although presumably factual,” statements above it. Notice that there is no[u] “Y”-scale on this chart at all. However, you are encouraged to believe it because one author calls himself a “climatologist” and the other a “meterologist.” It pays to be skeptical.
- The graph on #62, while objectively factual, extends only so far as my Junior year in High School.
- The comic on #67 starts with a hypothesis, boldly (albeit erroneously …) presented as a fact at the top of the page, then proceeds to indulge in “a comedy of logical fallacies.”
[LIST] - First, and foremost, begging the question.
- To conceal this, the cartoonist now creates a straw man, and subjects him to an ad hominem attack. (Very entertaining, but it proves [U]nothing.)
[/LIST]
If we actually could “look back four thousand years, and make a graph of it,” then … well … life would be easy, indeed. But, we can’t.
I suggest, instead, that we should take another look, and a much closer look, at what Mr. Al Gore did do, when he originally introduced “An Inconvenient Truth™,” and particularly, exactly how he did it. Of course he could have been “sensationalistic,” but let the record show that he wasn’t. Of course he could have “presented titillating ‘possible implications of’” the data that he showed, but let the record show that he generally didn’t. Even though this strategy generally served to confirm to all of us … at least, at the time … that “Al” really was an awkward dude who never quite seemed to fit inside of any double-breasted suit that he (inevitably …) wore … in retrospect I think that we need to (grudgingly) acknowledge that it was shrewd. And, therefore, effective.
(And, please … let’s not divert this thread toward “this particular person.” I simply mean to observe … I M H O™ … the diametric difference between the two approaches. One seems to present conclusions, whereas the other approach presents findings and XXXinvitesXXX requires you to draw your own conclusions.)
A word on consensus from Steven Koonen the undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Obama’s first term:
“We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influence. . . . The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high. . . . Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties, but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.”
A word on the shift towards climate change skepticism among climate scientists from Roy Spencer a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center:
"For many years we had been hearing from the ‘scientific consensus’ side that natural climate change is nowhere near as strong as human-caused warming . . . yet the lack of surface warming in 17 years has forced those same scientists to now invoke natural climate change to supposedly cancel out the expected human-caused warming!
C’mon guys. You can’t have it both ways! They fail to see that a climate system capable of cancelling out warming with natural cooling is also capable of causing natural warming in the first place. . . . To me, it feels like a climate skepticism tipping point has been reached."
Another quote from Roy Spencer’s blog:
"Now, as a skeptical PhD climate scientist who has been working and publishing in the climate field for over a quarter century, I can tell you I don’t know of any other skeptics who even “doubt climate change”.
The mere existence of climate change says nothing about causation. The climate system is always changing, and always will change. Most skeptics believe humans have at least some small role in that change, but tend to believe it might well be more natural than SUV-caused."
By the by, didn’t mean to imply that I was accusing you, Blonder, of calling anyone stupid. I was commenting on the use of that particular method by someone on this thread, can’t remember who right now and don’t feel like looking back at the moment.
P.S. Blender Artists is currently competing for my time with Sid Meier’s Civilization, now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go conquer the world.