They say:Jedi Master Spock wrote:Not at all true, nor all that relevant to the global warming models. What is more relevant is that the sharpness of the temperature increase is quite unusual.Mr. Oragahn wrote:MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
There's little chances they'd dismiss the graph on such basis if they didn't have read some form of evidence to back up such claims.The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
Here's an example of sudden peaks within a few years, when we observe global temperature since 1900.
What is interesting is that it provides values beyond 2000, and we can see that it's perfectly in line with what has happened before. The ups and down -- although occuring a notch higher since on the average, global temperature raised slowly -- show no oddity.
This global warming, precisely recognized by the source, has nothing to do with the anthropomorphic one, which is the point of controversy.... i.e., warming up since then. Ice turning into water pulls heat out of the rest of the system, and when there's a substantial period of change in one direction or another, it is one of the indicators of global warming or cooling.MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age.
In this particular case, reduction in ice levels have been predicted by global warming models, and those predictions have been precisely fulfilled as the years have passed.
It's been warmer - for example, in the Cretaceous. And transitioning to something like a Cretaceous climate in the course of a mere couple centuries would be catastrophic for us.
It says unrelated to whatever happens in the Pacific Ocean. Considering where the Pacific Ocean is, I don't even get what they were thinking about here.Unrelated cyclic events? Not exactly.FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder.
The reason why northern Europe - from Greenland on down - is starting to cool I linked you to earlier in the other thread - Gulf stream changes. It's a prediction dating back at least fifteen years as part of the global warming models. The fact of the matter is that global warming models do not project all of the Earth becoming uniformly warmer at the same time.
Besides, it replies to the claim that ice poles are warming up, as warming up per your standard alarmist (dramatic warming instead of minor natural warming).
It says that's incorrect as far as the Arctic is concerned.
The Gulf Stream "cooling" is addressed here, and literally suggests, based upon data, that the current has not weakened, but on the contrary has likely strengthened within the last decade.
Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away, By Greg Roberts, The Australian, April 18, 2009 11:52am.In parts of Greenland and parts of Antarctica. Other parts are shedding ice like nobody's business. Overall? Both the arctic and antarctic systems are losing ice on the whole.The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
This has to be opposed to the late January 2009 study.[...]
Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.
"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."
Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
Obviously the issue is certainly not settled. This page offers an explanation about the various reports.
There's also the difference between sea ice and land ice, and land ice is what is prone to change sea levels.
Also, several sources agree on the average steady and very slow warming of Antarctica, that makes is almost negligible in reality, especially over a few years only, and that despite spectacular China's increase of CO2 emissions since 2000.
- note: That said, what we see is that China has joined up with the USA in the per-capita CO2 emission. What this tells us is that the US have the highest values of CO2 emissions compared to other large territorial ensembles, and that China is likely going to continue going up. So I'd mitigate the author's comments and point out that a reduction of the per-pinhead CO2 emissions in the SUA, and later on in Europe, could be welcomed... but ONLY if proven to be detrimental to the planet, which is not a given at all.
As for the Arctic, tree samples analysis over 1500 years in Sweden shows that there are indeed strong ups and downs, but the average is still the same.
The alarmist rise faster than expectations seems to be bollocks of the highest order. :)The sea does not rise all places at the same rate at the same time, curiously enough - according to some measurements - but there's no question that it's rising overall. And rising, moreover, faster than we expect from ice melt alone - some of the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion rather than ice melt. Water does expand a little bit as you warm it up.Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
There's a global phenomenon that is evolving at a steady and natural pace. Not a forced and unatural one.
I just happened to do that with one of the first links I provided above, and I'm at pain to find any increase of temperature that would mirror the increase of global CO2 emissions, notably around the time China increased its CO2 emissions in 2000.Run the actual statistical correlation between CO2 levels and global average temperatures and you'll get a remarkably high figure. It's noncoincidental.
So globally we see that a large number of alarmist predictions were both erroneous and caused by the fractional observation of the data.
Not to say that sea levels are obviously going to rise as top water inflates due to global warming, but this global warming would prove to be natural.
Try "ocean acidification myth" in a SE, you'll see.The most dangerous effect of carbon overload, IMO, is ocean acidification, which I don't think you'll find mentioned on any "global warming myths" website, but it's a key feature of some of the most catastrophic projections, e.g., those involving a crash of the ocean's ecology. Ocean acidification alone is worth being worried about, regardless of whether you're living in a hurricane prone area, or a low-lying area, or anywhere else potentially impacted directly by global warming.
Reading This short page and its comments will show that, again, yes, there is a slow and steady acidification, but it's occuring so slowly that there's nothing to fear here, and the corals act as perfect buffers for this (along more vigorous and dense plantlife worldwide).
And the fact that on such models and above all, observation of empirical data, the oceans are never going to turn "acid" anytime soon.
This one addresses the alarmist claims with a spot on cartoon strip.
What I agree on is that cutting large swathes of forests is not smart, whether the release of CO2 is either done by rotting or consumption as firewood.
But this CO2 will be absorbed by other plans and corals.