It's climate in northern europe for SUMMER only. This isn't very conclusive especially since the largest part of "global warming" is affecting the colder seasons more.
And greenjoke, since "climate change" is something that has always happened you take all previous data to see if the earth is out of its normal climate change period.
The even more hilarious thing is that the graph, from like 1900+ is above the "cooling" trend line.. further proving nothing EXCEPT that before 1900 we were in a cooling trend.
The key thing to take away though is that according to this study, the tempature (during summer) has been higher in the past 2000 years where the study has also proven was during a cold trend.. but this is all with like a 1 degree Celsius variance.
I don't know a lot about this, but I am pretty sure I saw a lot of areas where there used to be ice / snow - completely green.
I saw videos of "time lapses" of the ice melting away over the decade etc. That ain't coming back, so how is the danger of water level rising - disproven? Am I missing something?
The issue with the data is that it is averaged over 2000 years. If global warming is due to human activity then we should compare the time before the industrial revolution to the time after that period. Looking at the data I see the reported downward trend until we get to the time around the industrial revolution, at which point there seems to be an upward trend.
Not proof, but certainly inconsistent with what the author intended.
If so, I just want to give a big fat "well played" kudos to left-wing parties around the world for such a highly successful power grab tactic! Wonder what will happen now...
Why even phrase this thread as a question if you've already picked a team to join and are busy waving their flag around?
There are very few unbiased sources on this matter. The most favorite movie on the matter, 'An Inconvenient Truth' was done by someone and parties who had everything to gain by causing panic and knee jerk reactions to the thought that if people didn't change their consumption then the world was going to burn.
One thing everyone can agree on is that over the past forty years the planet in most regions has warmed up to a centigrade or so higher than in the past. The cause for concern is over the fact that this trend coincides with increased fuel consumption across the globe. What pro-warmers fail to properly respect is that trends are not proper cause and effect and the planet has a known history of warming and cooling.
Quite plainly more data is needed and by the time we gather the relevant data it most likely won't matter.
Now as towards the decreasing consumption of fossil fuels, I'm all for that. Fossil fuels are in dwindling supply, and more efficient solar power would be nice. Although do not forget that solar power harnesses solar radiation that would otherwise heat the planet, so the amount of use needs to be carefully managed or we could screw with the planet even further by creating new pockets of cool that were previously warm (If we ever bumped solar cell efficiency to somewhere around 50%). Wind and ocean current turbines extract energy from those mediums and remove it from that system, meaning the regions they extract the energy from move slightly slower, put in too much and you could take a blustery wind and turn it into a stale breeze. Take that into account when at the coast, coastal breezes help moderate temperatures inland, without that ocean air moving inland, inland temperatures begin to roast.
But yeah, the entire point being, that no energy is free, if you remove it from a source, then that source has it taken away, take too much away and things can go wrong. For example, if you took $100 out of $1 billion, that really doesn't effect the $1 billion that much, it's still quite a large sum of money. Take $50,000 out and then it's a bit more noticable chunk taken away. Take away $1 million and that is even more noticeable and starts to seriously impact the overall value. Take away $20 million and that formerly $1 billion isn't close to $1 billion anymore, it's just $80 million (each subtraction is a separate event from an independent $1 billion pool).
All it says is that there's a chance that it's just a change due to the sun going through cycles. It does not disprove CO2s effect on climat changes. Only says it's not the only factor. That can't be news to anyone can it? It only mentions CO2 once, when saying:
"Together with long-term CO2 variability resulting from biogeochemical feedbacks of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems14, these insolation cycles have initiated the interplay between glacial and interglacial periods15."
All this says is that CO2 has an effect on the climate, regardless of human influence.
Besides, this observation is based on one method of estimating temperatures, which is also admitted by the article.
All in all the linked post in the original post is a conclusion based on a scientific paper, that the paper itself doesn't even do. It's searched and biased.
ok, lets say climate change is false and humans don't do anything strong enough to change climate... that doesn't mean we can go throwing all our trash into the ocean, or polluting the rivers with chemicals, or burning oil until our cities have more smoke than air, or digging holes into the ground and spilling all the oil around like it is clean water and so on...
If climate change is true, then more reason to change our ways, if not, it doesn't mean we can keep going as we are unless we want a wasteland for a planet :/
Edit: Oh and @Karalius: Yet you completely ignored Daemaro's post, and you totally contradict yourself by posting an off topic post in a thread that you want to have a rational discussion in...
I fail to see how is his post relevant to my post. Is it about the "cycles" ? I have been told that the ice that melts away (ice caps or whatever it is) never come back. They are gone forever. If it is not about that, I have no idea what you are referring to.
Also I don't understand how melting icecaps and rising water levels are off topic since they are the direct consequence of pollution/global warming etc?
It is just another data point which shows that no side really knows (and any competent scientist will say as much). Predicting weather /climate changes is hard. Really hard. So hard in fact that physicists snicker at the predictions made by climatologists and meteorologists because they are little more than guesses. The ability to correctly model climate changes is beyond our capability at this point in time, so all estimates are made using historical data and loose models that tend to return widely varying results with small input changes.
The fact that it is a political issue is a problem. It is no longer a purely scientific issue, so there is a lot of FUD thrown around by both sides. The fact is none of us are in any position to have an opinion on the matter (unless one of you are working on your PhD at the moment). We hear things and we latch on to them, but we don't have the education or experience to disseminate that information and judge it critically, we just accept it (and its supposed consequences) as fact.