Usually 150 years because they show a period of fairly constant temperature growth. If you dig into the 1500 year cycle, things get a bit dodgy because there are some ups and downs, but the trend is still going up.
The 10000 year cycle data from the Greenland ice sheet project (GISP2) is absolutely haram, don’t look into that unless you’re a nazi.
? There is still room to question data . It’s a different issue to us all being sensible and doing our bit.
So is this this NASA info incorrect …or just a blip? Or completely false?
Brown reports that NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Does this make NASA a global warming denier?
Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45 percent. It was ignored.
Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”
Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.
Now, they are also turning their backs on NASA’s findings.
In sum, says Brown, global warming faces a crisis of credibility.
Seems to me that temps going up means far less than concrete actions humans can take to reduce climate change (assuming that’s a goal).
I’m more interested in tried and proven solutions than modern trends. Whatever worked before tells us, at the very least, what human actions have proven effective.
Yes, I think this is true and is much overlooked as a reason why people do not believe in climate change.
While it may well be true that the earth’s climate is heating up, I’m not sure that human activity is behind it. It’s true that we humans are busy as bees, and around the world, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that our behavior is driving climate temperatures up. If you ask “what else could it be?” and I say “I don’t know,” then that, too, doesn’t prove that it can only be humans doing the heating.
And moving on to another topic - can humans reverse the earth’s reported warming - it’s clear that it’s never been done before. We have no recorded track record of reversing a warming trend of any kind. Whether warming began twenty or fifty or 140 or 1500 years ago, there is no recorded act by man proven to have reduced that warming.
I’m not saying that humans can’t impact the earth’s environment. Obviously that’s possible, and obviously humans can take actions that halt pollution. It doesn’t necessarily follow that humans can take actions that reverse climate warming, though.
That those urging us to make changes that may halt (or may not halt - again, we just don’t know) warming are unwilling to admit that we cannot point to successful actions in the past surely explains at least some of the lack of urgency we see. And for some it probably makes it easier to deny climate change happens at all.
History is full of scientific “truths” held by experts that would understand it. And a lot of them turned out very wrong, and even persecuted people who were actually right.
But those false ideas were based on less evolved science and were proven wrong by evidence, data, statistics, and demonstrated to be false. This is a case where the data is confirming scientists theories. Climate scientists aren’t invested in the outcome that AGW is going on, and if credible reasons showed up to change their minds they would.
I agree with what you’re saying except that climate scientists are not invested in the outcome. I think it would be in their interest to at least cause more fear to get more funding. And they get a lot right now. I think human pollution is bad, and can indeed impact the climate as one of the results. But I’m not onboard with the alarmist point of view like I was 2 years ago when I started his thread.
There’s a stronger financial motive on the denial side though. They’re funded by Oil companies. If academics wanted to make stuff up to enrich themselves, they’d be claiming it wasn’t happening.
Climate scientists get attacked for this but why not in other branches of science? (Not a lot of gravity skeptics out there claiming physicists are just trying to keep their gigs for example). This to me is a strong indicator that the coroporate agenda to cast doubt on science is the issue.
I’m all for healthy doubting of what he read and hear but it’s hard to think that the body of climate scientists out there are all compromised and there’s no real proof to show that. The background of those denying it are far more suspect.
Pretty sure credible scientists would change their minds if presented with a real reason to.
I think there are many scientists who are not on the alarmist side. But they don’t really get much attention. Saying the world will end soon is “sexy” science.
I think that’s more of a gripe with the media’s presentation of it (the ‘debate’ keeps clicks coming) than with the scientists themselves though.
People hearing this are scared too, the conclusions scientists are arriving at show that there’s some real cause for alarm. I hope they’re wrong but it keeps headed the way they’ve predicted and faster…
