“Melinda...how much did the earth's temperature go up in the last 100 years and where did we get the data to measure that increase? I mean where did the actual data come from...not who reported it.
Just in case...this IS a trick question.”
Camaraderi, temperature change since 1880: +0.8 C
Although weather observations were becoming increasingly more accurate 100 years, the vast majority of climate models reconstruct data of 100 years ago by using the same methods as they have for previous centuries, ice and sediment core samples, tree rings, coral, and rocks. For the actual data they had 100 years ago, they used mercury thermometers, barometers, observed cloud-cover, storm systems; local weather charts were eventually but they mainly involved high and low pressure systems.
Sailaway21, I think you’re right. Climate change won’t be settled for a while due to sensationalism and slanted reports. Climate models will NEVER be 100% accurate, so people will continue to debate on what’s happening.
People must look at, idealistically, all of the models to get an idea of the extent of climate change. There will always be models that disagree, and it’s not surprising that some news articles proudly display these differences as the “correct” data, regardless of the mass. Note: all data is correct data, but the reoccurring data and model agreement is key.
Here’s something neat. The David Battisti from the University of Washington is working on a model that represents the predictability distribution by using data from all of previous climate models. In other words, this model provides the shape of uncertainty on overall climate change data. For example, there's a ¼ of a chance that climate change will be twice the average of current climate models. So the more data that’s involved in the model, the more accurate it will be so as time goes on…
….and I wouldn’t accuse you of being tedious, you made a typo
“The fact you are quoting from a Government source is scary in and of itself. Now, there is a group of people I trust. A better question is WHO funded the study?”
RB, that’s a good question with any study, who funds it? Which do you prefer, a privately-funded, think-tanks, governmentally-funded?
I’ll use Poopdeckpappy’s links from page 78 as examples.
The first link is just…well… a blog, and I’ll leave it at that.
The second one is more interesting:
“Dennis Avery from the Hudson Instite write an article that states, “A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.”
Dennis Avery is the director of the Center of Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute. The Hudson Institute is a think tank based in Washington D.C. that gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left."
Dennis Avery has written a few articles, my favorite being the misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with pesticides. He quoted S. Fred Singer, a climate change expert in that
PR report you linked.
Singer’s expertise in climate change involved research on behalf of oil companies such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. He’s also done tobacco industry contracts.
Follow the money?
I’d like to see any report that shows that corals are adaptive to “the routine reality of climate change.”
Have you heard of ocean acidification? Pteropods, coccolithophores, and what-not don’t really need their shells, do they? Scientists are seeing malformed zooplankton regularly; NOAA, Australian Antarctic Division, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, University of Washington, the University of Corporation for Atmospheric Research, and countless others are currently researching this effect on corals and zooplankton. And these organisms are adaptive? Doubt it. Others organisms may benefit but the majority, especially corals, are far from adapting.
And you’re right again,RB, “THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS AN EXPERT, JUST VARYING DEGREES OF IGNORANCE.”
There are also varying degrees of education specific to oceanography, atmospheric sciences, geology, chemistry, biology, and physics. But a high degree of ignorance is a prerequisite for politics.
“Also, if so called "Global Warming" isn't attributiable to mankind, then there's nothing to be done about it. And it can't be a crisis, unless we can do something about it.”
I never said it was a crisis PBzeer, I simply stated that the 2007 IPCC report is 90-95% confident that emissions from man influence more than half of global warming. This report:
1.) doesn’t call climate change a crisis,
2.) doesn’t state ways for people to reduce emissions.
I’ve thumbed through who wrote the articles, reviewed the articles, and funded the research, and I don’t see what you’re getting at. The majority of the lead authors and reviewers are from universities from all over the world. Although I can’t link it, you can easily go to the IPCC site, click “About IPCC” and read through the working groups. What organizations on the list don’t you like?
The World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program is where the money’s at. After reading through their sites, I’m still missing your point. What exactly unsettles you about these organizations? I’m keen on reading any information you may have.
“Many of whom disavow the conclusions” Where is this information coming from? Can you provide some links?
I can easily and honestly say the people I’ve met whose research was involved in the IPCC don’t shy away from their data or the IPCC report itself, but I get the feeling that won’t affect your opinion
“Perhaps you can show me just where it says what the global temperatures should be? The earth warms, it cools, and has always, and will always, do so, irrespective of anything mankind does.”
I agree with you in some sense I guess. The earth warms, cools, irrespective of what mankind might do, yes… but people DO have a large impact on climate.
Where global temperatures should be? Not where they are now. Read any work by Richard Feely or David Battisti for starters and tell me what you think of their figures.
Connect with Facebook
153Likes
