IMO, no studies with baselines of less than a hundred years could even conceivably offer evidence of global warming. Since we haven't been doing studies on the climate for more than a hundred years, I don't believe anyone can provide any evidence of climate trends yet.
I agree, i don't think you can classify this event more than an interesting anomaly.
Should the rise persist in the next decade or something then you can write it of to global warming.
For now, i'd say it no more than unusual.
I don't try to argue specifics since I'm not an expert. My position is that in lieu of the majority of climate experts who feel that global warming is now certain, and with more and more evidence that human activities are at least partly responsible - consider the recent admission of such by even the Bush administration - we can't afford the luxury of following the guesses of amateurs.
Then consider general arguments. The models are called models for a reason - they're sorely lacking in physics. You won't find Navier-Stokes in the models but you'll find substantial choas on time scales that are meaningful in terms of climate change. You will find a "global temperature" but you won't find a basis for it in reality since the concept of temperature makes little sense for a system that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. You'll get tons of predictions but the input data is far too sparse to instill more than minimal confidence in the results.
Amateurs aren't particularly reliable but the experts should certainly know better - GIGO!
You may not realize it but you are insulting the top nodge of the physisists here, who happened to have put a lot of effort in exploration of global warming. And besides it's an "ad hominem" too. The most used fallacy of the global warmers second to "appeal to authority": "there is consensus among the scientists that global warming is a fact...." Forget it, it's not. Nowhere near it. And it's raising my neck hairs.
For the balance:
There are just hot spots and cold spots. So easy to highlight the hot spots and hide the cold ones.
An appeal to authority is how science works. We listen to the experts; not amateurs with theories of their own. Also, you consistently post information that has nothing to do with the issue - your el-nino link for example. finally, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that one major scientific organization after another, which are composed of genuine experts, do not agree with your claims.
For starters, you reject a most basic source of information: Ice cores. How many scientists back you on this one? Maybe 0.1% or less?
What raises the hair on my neck is that people are willing to risk their children's futures. There is too much at risk to play politics.
How many scientists back you on this one? Maybe 0.1% or less?
How many Copernicusses did it take to break the scientific consensus that the Sun moved around the Earth?
you reject a most basic source of information: Ice cores
You have no idea what you're talking about. The ice cores refute that CO2 is causing global warming. Not proving it. Moreover we think we understand it all but we have no idea yet what the ice cores are telling us but for sure they are in no way accurate paleo thermometers. How about this for instance.
that people are willing to risk their children's futures.
BTW A choice to reduce CO2 emision with the sole purpose of trying to mitigate climate changes is double risky for children futures. It may cripple the economy and can be wrong in two instances instead of one, either when global warming is not causing catastrophic climate changes or when the reducing has too little effect.
The skeptics have only one risk of two factors being true simultaneously: both that global warming is catastrophic and that reduction of emission would have worked together. And in this case there is still an economic motor that could mitigate effects directly.
How "counter intuitive" it may seem but the alarmists are much more dangerous to Earth than the skeptics.
Just a little bit more information to show that I did do a little bit of research to back up my ideas.
This amateur shows the high variability of the Arctic sea ice.
another certain bad spelling amateur computed the real life temperatures of all 14 active high arctic weather stations (over 70 degrees lattitude) from Jan 1900 until Juli 2004. Yes the Arctic is warming just like it did in the nineteen thirties to peak around 1940. Temperatures may have been higher during that spike. Beware for 2030, then the temps will be in the valley again.
Talking about weather stations, this amateur discovered the very high inverse correlation between measured temperatures and number of active weather stations.This clearly indicates the highly underestimated effect of the so called "Urban Heat Islands".
Does anyone recall the name of the group of researchers who roamed around recording temperatures and such in Europe a couple of centuries ago?
I also have the same question. Adam, if you know, please let me know 2
Well Adam and Eva
The records don't go that far back but here are some plots of European actual measured temperatures as of 1780.
Note that the long term warming -going through the could ninetheenth century is only 0,02 degrees per decade.
Some more amateur talk on global warming.
I realize whenever temperature comes up people instantly jump onto global warming, but this is insanity. Shame on Space Daily for posting such an inflamatory article.
A 1 F temperature rise in 1 year in a tiny section of the ocean is utterly useless for climatology. But the implication of such articles is 'look at how fast its going up!'
By comparison, El Nino and La Nina are surface (down to maybe 150m) phenomena, but they can show year-to-year variations on the order of 10F over large portions of the Pacific Ocean. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/el-nino-story.html
Few scientists really doubt there is global warming - but articles like this don't help pin it down any.
It's great to have a discussion purely of quotes.
I'd like to see some more discussion/references on this. Separate topic perhaps?
The link claims to "raise some doubt about the usability of isotope ratio proxies as palaeo-temperature indicators" but does not say ice cores are "in no way accurate paleothermometers". (I realize this is just one example you're providing.)
Models do have limitations, but they're not useless. They're based on current knowledge and are calibrated on (checked against) actual climate systems.
Is this true? I'm not too familiar with the actual models, but having taken a Computational Fluid Mechanics course in college, I would think it's possible to do so (or at least approximate it).
Can't the models make regional predictions?
Should we bet the future of the planet and generations to come on mainstream science, or should we bet that Andre is the next Copernicus?
Andre, I think it is great that you work so hard and have learned so much. I don't understand why, since you are not an expert or even degreed in a related subject, you feel compelled argue and prove your point, rather than discuss. If this was a physics subforum instead of earth sciences, I have no doubt that you would be shuttled off to theory development.
Separate names with a comma.