Only if you assume the Earth's overall average temperature doesn't ebb and flow. There have been times when the oceans covered the entire planet. There have been ice ages. Weather and climate patterns are constantly in flux. The only constant is they don't stay the same.
Yes, of course observational data is better than a model. Silly to refer to that as a “warning”. The three day forecast is a model. Going out with a thermometer on Wednesday will obviously measure the high temperature more accurately than what the model says on Monday. Bet it’s close though.
What does this have to do with anything? The best we can tell this was one of the hottest days on the planet in 100,000 years. During a period where the last 8 years have been the hottest on record in a similar timeframe. That isn’t likely random fluctuation.
If you think we can accurately peg what record high temperatures were 50,000 years ago, you’re on more medications than I originally thought.
Could there be any set of information, evidence, data, what have you that would cause you consider that man made global warming is real?
Explain how they got temperature reading going back 125,000 years from ice cores. I’m curious on how this was done.
How do we know the temperatures going back 100k years? I’m really interested in finding out how these measurements were taken.
We know that the earth is significantly warmer now than it was 50,000 years ago and for a daily temperature to be higher then than the recent extremes would be extremely unlikely.
As it relates to "man made global warming", ie carbon emissions as greenhouse gas, it could very possibly be causing higher than normal warming of the Earth's surface, but the data actually show it's nothing to be overly concerned with to the point of subjugation to self-mutilation via mandate by the government. I've read former MIT/Harvard professors state the same sentiment I just did, so I am not in need of validation. There are several natural factors that have always caused climate change. We can only infer temperatures before 1850 from geological record and that's a very inexact science. They may profess to be more exact than they are, but there is a reason why the official temperature record only goes back to 1850. You also can't get reliable temperatures at 2m height from geology, since wind, overcast are unknown variables which can cause significant variation in what the 2m temperature was versus the temperature on top of the crust. Also since 1850, we've added hundreds of thousands more data points to the end net result figure, so how we've measured temperature has changed quite considerably during the last 170~ years. But we still do not know how much the following natural factors are playing into it and since we really don't know what the Earth's mean 2m temperature was 175 years ago or greater, we don't have an accurate data set to compare the current rate of warming to. You can go on and on about geological record, but if it had accuracy, it would be part of the official meteorological record and it is not. Here are the natural factors which impact climate change on Earth. I hope you will agree that these factors might be a little more important than an increase from 280 ppm CO2 to 410 ppm CO2 that we've seen since the year 1900: 1. strength of the sun - it varies... a lot 2. changes in the Earth's orbit, axial tilt and precession 3. changes in ocean currents 4. plate tectonics and volcanic eruptions The whole argument for manmade global warming rests on the assumption that natural processes do not remove the additional human caused 2% of carbon dioxide emissions. 98% of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is from naturally occurring processes. Nothing to do with fossil fuels. The argument says that the natural processes do not remove the fossil fuel burn carbon emissions from fossil fuels as it does with the natural emissions. Further, it argues carbon emissions from human sources takes upwards of a million years to remove from the Earth's atmosphere. A lot of assumptions being made there, because like surface temperature, we haven't had a reliable measurement of CO2 ppm before 1900. But even if we assume the historical data is true, it says in 1900 we had 280 ppm carbon dioxide and today we're at roughly 410 ppm carbon dioxide. First, we have no way of knowing it would take a million years to scrub the atmosphere of manmade CO2. I'm confident technology will help us out there if we really need it. That said, if the naturally occurring baseline is 280 ppm and we're at 410 ppm today, and we're assuming everything is carbon neutral except for the 2% of CO2 which comes from fossil fuel burn, the ppm should be expanding at an exponential pace by this point. As fossil fuel CO2 release continues to rise and it cannot be scrubbed from the atmosphere, the underlying baseline would hold stable at 280 ppm and the non-underlying baseline would continue increasing at an exponential pace, especially given the per annum rate of emissions continuously increasing each year. So, I suppose it's possible some of the scientists might be correct. (they don't all agree) But there is a lot of guesswork, fear mongering and propaganda with this as well, which has always been a red flag for me. Any time politicians are out there embellishing an issue like this, I'm immediately skeptical, since there is no plausible benefit to mankind by overstating the context of this issue. Government knows this, but still politicians go into histrionics about it (Al Gore, AOC for example). But as I stated before, the budget shows you what the real priority is for the government. Fact is our government is spending more money on the war in Ukraine than we are in renewable energy production this year. Renewable energy investment is probably still a good thing for several reasons. Still better for the environment and gives countries a chance to become truly energy independent so they are not at the behest of a major supply state (Russia, for example). I'll leave it there. Way longer than I intended it to be, but that's where I stand. Are we causing global warming? Yes, it is possible that we are. But there are many other factors and variables at play and the world as a whole will most likely be burning far less fossil fuel 50 years from now than we are today. It's in the "gets a big yawn" category for me.
"Geological record" is what they like to call it, which of course, has no method of validation. It's more like inferred geological hypotheses, with a side of strong bias. Our meteorological data collection in the last 75 years alone has changed vastly. Ocean currents and wind patterns is why you can still get record lows this upcoming winter, even though we've been warming for the past 50 years. The dearth of data points, even 100 years ago, robs us of any real true understanding of what the Earth's mean temperature was at that time.
I doubt you really want to know, but here is a link that will help people who are truly interested understand. LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You
If I didn’t want to know I wouldn’t ask the question. So they estimate the temps based on models? Not super accurate, certainly not as accurate as things like a thermometer that you know actually measures the temperature. Thank you.
Weather models…..that still today consistently get weather forecasting 72 hours into the future very wrong, can tell us what temperatures were 100,000 years ago. That people actually believe this is why my faith in humanity wavers.
Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism, commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical, politically motivated, and even contemptible human pursuits.
As to the sun there is no evidence that it is the cause of warming in recent history. Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions Changes in the earths orbit of the sun span thousands of years. You won’t see a difference in 150 Are orbital changes causing global warming?. As to changes in ocean currents, the risk associated with that is usually global cooling, potentially rapid cooling. Plate tectonics and eruptions are measurable. Large eruptions did cause brief cooling periods in recent decades but nothing has happened on a large scale over the last 150 years. Basically there is no evidence that any other of the known factors that change climate have been an effect over the last 150 years. There is lots of evidence that man made greenhouse gases are a primary factor How reliable are climate models? Look at it at a simplistic level - I assume you agree with the scientific fact that greenhouse gases cause are earth to be substantially warmer, to the tune of about 60 degrees than they otherwise would be? https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/#:~:text=The Short Answer:,would be without an atmosphere. Greenhouse Effect The greenhouse effect keeps Earth’s climate comfortable. Without it, surface temperatures would be cooler by about 33 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit), and many life forms would freeze. If greenhouse gases are known to warm the earth 60 degrees, why is it so implausible that a substantial increase in co2 can’t raise it a few degrees more? It is true that co2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time. But I’m not following your logic. Yes most co2 is from natural sources. But it only takes a little bit more man made to increase the concentration. Assume that the atmosphere co2 concentration would be roughly at equilibrium over a 100 year span (that isn’t true for hundreds of thousands of years). Adding an additional 2% over year would double co2 in 50 years. Actual co2 has gone up over 50% over the past 150 years. So you are admitting co2 has increased, but denying the known man made incremental increase, which would more than account for the increase, is not the cause of the increase. That doesn’t make any sense. I have some agreement here. Renewable energy is good for many reasons beyond climate change. I also tend to think whatever we do, for the good, probably isn’t going to make a huge difference in climate on a global level. We could reduce our net carbon to zero and the rest of the world usage would dwarf that effect.
Then of course there’s this straight from the dealer of the problem. 1977 no less; this gets extra special benefit and respect as it’s a knife at their throat and the research was done by their own people. It’s not a question any longer. It’s a fact; however direct remediation is required; even if it was 100% natural; I’d say we still have to direct our awesome ability to solve problems and come up with a way to change the issue directly. We’ll need that knowledge some day. It’s one of the steps to higher advancement next is being able to control the Sun and solar system. Next is galactic. Facts can be a very “ Inconvenient truth. Exxon scientists predicted global warming with ‘shocking skill and accuracy,’ Harvard researchers say – Harvard Gazette
