Who has read this and still doesn't recognize that anthropogenic global warming is the most likely explanation
http://profend.com/global-warming/pages/intro.html
If you have read this and you still art convinced that AGW is a significant and the most likely possible cause of the current global warming phenomena why not. I have read a plethora of data and hundreds of scientific journal articles but this explains it in a way that gets rid of the jargon and seems unbiased. Do you agree.
It was probably hotter yesterday than the global average but that proves nothing. Where is this data for 1930 that you have cherry picked from the thousands of years of isotope data from glaciers and icecaps. I don’t understand what you mean specifically when you say cherry pick because it seems pretty clear to me that the data collected from the thousands of scientists all over the world monitoring global climate change has been collected objectively. If you don’t understand the data or how it is calculated or how to interpret it maybe you should listen to the scientists who study the topic.
The only thing insulting is your lack of understanding of the basic concepts of climate science. You do realize that the changes you talk about occurred over thousands or even millions of years and the changes in the climate that are now visible are occurring at a rate much faster than in the past. If the changes always occurred this fast the climate would be so variable that life would be hard pressed to adapt to change. I do admit though that a lot of which you refer to is the case but its not evidence that AGW doesn’t exist. Could you imagine a climatologist saying that its just a cycle or that its happened in the past. If it was a natural cycle as may are (sun irradiance 11 year cycles or variations in the suns orbit) they would be calculated and the scientists would be telling us exactly that. Why would it be in their interest to make things up. They already have jobs; make shitloads of money and don’t need global warming to survive. You show no evidence to the contrary.
Did you even read the link.
You do realize that in 1930 it was only the hottest year for the average temperature in the US. Besides the fact that this is not an average temperature recorded in a fashion that can be trusted (like the same site shows earlier) and that it is only the US data proves nothing.
Much of the historical temperature data used by scientists is collected via icecaps or glaciers and is calculated using from isotope values. Your website in some cases criticizes a technique of data collection or analysis and then uses it an a different situation involving sunspots. That’s crap mate you need to be objective and look at what you read and determine who has been mislead.
Dude that is not a piece of contemporary literature (1994 that more than ten years old) it uses old techniques. Why don’t you go down to the library and get some contemporary (2000-2007) climate literature from any journal and it will only have modern analysis and proven techniques.
Why don’t you look at the global average temperature data in the modern stuff before you and your friends contradict each other.
You guys actually put up a good argument but some muppets on here do neither side of the debate any good by saying things that are off the planet. This website (above) is climate change pro biased but it does show a lot of the general information in a simple form. A lot of people don’t no anything about it except absolute crap. There are many good articles that have valid data and show that AGW is a highly likely scenario. No scientist would ever say that it is 100% for sure except Gore bags who is a nutter i admit but you cant deny that the biggest weight of evidence suggests AGW is forcing the current temperature increases.
Consensus among scientists has been evident for many years before Gore jumped in and made some money
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
The above article although supposedly use to refute climate change in fact makes it even more robust given the absolute magnitude of scrutiny of the subject. furthermore the article only referred to the one article written not by a climatologist but by someone writing a collaborative work that they obviously muffed.
Im not refuting the fact that the data is out of date but the analysis techniques, and method of temperature collection are flawed as has been suggested in many reports many on your side of the debate. The fact is that there was warming and cooling and warming and cooling but the report only suggests that the climate in the country in question has experienced these changes and that at the time of the report, 1994 that mild conditions in the early 90s found that it was difficult to determine a trend. You do realize that it is 2007, it has been 14 years since 1994 (1994 inclusive) and therefore any trends that Sweden had 14 years ago have now been superseded by contemporary data or data that goes all the way up to 2007. If you think that because in one country, 14 years ago that they found no significant trends in temperature it disproved global warming, you’re out of touch.
Have you even looked at recent data for say the last thousand years or even 200 years. If the increased temperature trend continues, for how many years will it have to continue for you to change your mind or will you always think that is a natural trend. Look at historical data from ice cores and look at the time scales involved in temperature change and you will realize that they occur over tens of thousands of years and not within a century.
The warming in the MWP was fast but the data shows that it was over centuries, rose to levels below temperatures today and was restricted to the north Atlantic and not the entire earth. type it in on a search and you will see the evidence, do you think that the MWP is not considered when climatologists make hypothesis about current temperature changes.
The only places refuting the fact that it is warmer today than it was in the MWP are newspapers probably due to their ties to political groups and polluting companies. None of the refuting information is based upon contemporary evidence or verifiable data. Ships further north than now reported (they used to think you sailed of the end of the earth at the time how the *%$# would they know how far north they were and how would we now know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
In the report below note how every time a piece of evidence is quoted and then refuted the only reference is to the refuted evidence and no evidence is given to the contrary. If i handed this in at university even as an undergrad i would fail and get done for not referencing appropriately.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=5POTZCCEQXHJNQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0