Why Do Environmental Activists Continue...

[INRM]

Why do environmental activists continue talking about the danger of increasing global warming effects even though it's been proven that the data that showed that since 2000 there has not been any evidence to suggest an increase in temperature (Even the BBC wrote this), and that conclusive evidence exists to suggest that the East Anglia CRU, along with other Climate Research Units around the world have went to elaborate machinations to manipulate climate research data to falsely show a progressive increase in temperature when there currently is none?

I'm wondering if this is a kind of propaganda tactic. Even in the face of evidence suggesting that there is currently no serious sign of runaway increases in temperature, they keep suggesting there is, figuring that if they say it enough everybody will eventually believe it.


INRM
BTW: Before anybody derails this thread by making conclusions about me, I am not saying that I do not believe that global warming exists -- I do believe it exists; I am not saying that I do not believe humans have a global impact on climate -- I do believe human behavior can affect climate. What I am saying is that since 2000 there has been no reliable evidence of runaway temperatures, and that some of the top climate research units across the world have been caught manipulating data to show a runaway climate change when there actually is none.

 

[Upchurch]

Why do environmental activists continue talking about the danger of increasing global warming effects even though it's been proven that the data that showed that since 2000 there has not been any evidence to suggest an increase in temperature

What scientific peer-reviewed study are referring to?

 

[Francesca R]

The one that proves negatives, probably

 

[Cynic]

Do melting ice caps and mountain tops not count as evidence anymore?

 

[Upchurch]

I just clued in on this:

...that since 2000 there has not been any evidence...

Aside from my not being sure that is even factually accurate, this is appears to be an incident of cherry-picking. Pick an appropriately small enough time line and (I suspect) a small enough geographical area you can "prove" anything about environmental change.

For example, given my local climate data since yesterday, I can conclude that the Earth's environment will below absolute zero in just a year. But not to worry, based on projections for tomorrow, we will have long since drowned in the massive amount of floods based increased precipitation before that happens.


INRM, you have to take the long view of climate change over the entire global over long periods of time. A short local blip is just that.

 

[Francesca R]

I can't be sure but I suspect that if the data was analysed properly it might even show actual cooling in the northern hemisphere, perhaps stretching as far back as August. Certainly feels like that, but I'm no climatologist.

 

[Steve]

Do melting ice caps and mountain tops not count as evidence anymore?

This certainly provide evidence that current temperatures are high enough to cause this melting. It does not provide evidence that temperatures have continued to increase during the time frame referenced in the OP.

 

[Upchurch]

It does not provide evidence that temperatures have continued to increase during the time frame referenced in the OP.

The OP does not provide evidence that temperatures have not increased during the time frame referenced in the OP.

...or that it would be relevant in a discussion on overall global warming.

 

[Steve]

I just clued in on this:

Aside from my not being sure that is even factually accurate, this is appears to be an incident of cherry-picking. Pick an appropriately small enough time line and (I suspect) a small enough geographical area you can "prove" anything about environmental change.

This is equally true for long time lines and large geographical areas.

For example, given my local climate data since yesterday, I can conclude that the Earth's environment will below absolute zero in just a year. But not to worry, based on projections for tomorrow, we will have long since drowned in the massive amount of floods based increased precipitation before that happens.


INRM, you have to take the long view of climate change over the entire global over long periods of time. A short local blip is just that.

The question that I see underlying the discussions in many climate change threads in these fora is "how long?". A day, a week, a month or a year, will not give accurate climate change trends. Is 10 years enough? 20? 50? 100? 1000? 10,000? Changes can be observed over any of these time periods, and within these time periods. Anyone with any point of view can select a time frame that will (appear) to support their position. This is a substantial part of the reasons why these discussions seem to go on and on.

 

[Steve]

The OP does not provide evidence that temperatures have not increased during the time frame referenced in the OP.

...or that it would be relevant in a discussion on overall global warming.

I agree. I was merely commenting that Cynic's post did not provide the evidence that he appeared to think it did.

 

[Upchurch]

This is equally true for long time lines and large geographical areas.

When talking about long-term global climate change, how do you figure that? Would you want to study global climate over the longest period of time possible?

Anyone with any point of view can select a time frame that will (appear) to support their position.

I'm no climate scientist, but are you suggesting that every reputable scientific society is pushing a political agenda?

Are you familiar with how science works, in general?

 

[rain]

This certainly provide evidence that current temperatures are high enough to cause this melting. It does not provide evidence that temperatures have continued to increase during the time frame referenced in the OP.

Yes, but there is a great deal of evidence that supports that arctic ice is not just melting, but that the melting is accelerating. One event that greatly disturbed climatologists was the complete opening of the Northwest Passage in 2007 which was a first occurrence in human memory. This level of melting was well beyond what was expected from accepted climate models of the times.

One has to keep in mind that there are fluctuations in weather and changes in seasons in the Arctic just like anywhere else on earth. So some new ice is actually expected to accumulate whereas some old ice is expected to remain based on yearly data that measures numerous variables such as ice thickness, area of ice coverage, etc. When we begin to see consistent ice loss over time even in spite of interannual variation, even a casual observer might begin to bet on longterm warming. Some years will naturally see lower temperatures and increased ice formation but one has to look at the long term trend even past a span of five or ten years sometimes. However, the science is good enough to distinguish between a sustained level of melting and accelerated melting.

 

[Steve]

When talking about long-term global climate change, how do you figure that? Would you want to study global climate over the longest period of time possible?

Well, the term "long-term" means different things to different people. I would think that any reputable climate scientist would select a time frame that is relevant to the phenomenon he or she wants to study. In the case of AGW this would necessarily limit the time frame to (at the outside) the length of time that humans have existed. Within that limit the scientist would have to determine the period during which the actual detectable influence of humans on climate would likely have occurred. This could not avoid having at least some level of arbitrariness (is that a word?) to it.

I'm no climate scientist, but are you suggesting that every reputable scientific society is pushing a political agenda?

I do not believe I have suggested any such thing. Have you truly been able to determine my position on GW/AGW from anything I have posted in this thread?

Are you familiar with how science works, in general?

I started to write a long response to this but changed my mind. My answer to this question is - yes. Do you have any reason to suspect that I don't?

 

[Steve]

Yes, but there is a great deal of evidence that supports that arctic ice is not just melting, but that the melting is accelerating. One event that greatly disturbed climatologists was the opening of the Northwest Passage in 2007 which was a first occurrence in human memory. This level of melting was well beyond what was expected from accepted climate models of the times.

One has to keep in mind that there are fluctuations in weather and changes in seasons in the Arctic just like anywhere else on earth. So some new ice is actually expected to accumulate whereas some old ice is expected to remain based on yearly data that measures numerous variables such as ice thickness, area of ice coverage, etc. When we begin to see consistent ice loss over time even in spite of interannual variation, even a casual observer might begin to bet on longterm warming. Some years will naturally see lower temperatures and increased ice formation but one has to look at the long term trend even past a span of five or ten years sometimes. However, the science is good enough to distinguish between a sustained level of melting and accelerated melting.

Per my response to Upchurch above - I have nowhere in my posts given my position on GW/AGW. I merely commented that the post by Cynic does not provide the evidence claimed in it.

 

[lomiller]

The OP is making (or repeating) a false claim regarding some quotes in e-mail recently stolen from the Hadley Climate Research Unit in the UK.

In the e-mail they were discussing how to present a graph of a temperature proxy that is know to decline is usability after 1960. (This issue with the proxy is discussed extensively in the literature because while it’s cause it’s really known it’s possible evidence of CO2 fertilization increasing tree growth.)

They were using the proxy in their paper and discussing how to present it in the correct context. They decided to graph it along with the actual measured temperatures from the same time to show that the decline present in the proxy was not an indicator of declines in actual temperature.

When the e-mails were stolen the usual political suspects extracted a single sentence from that e-mail and quoted it as evidence scientists were trying to hide some decline in actual temperatures. Seems to me that plotting the actual temperatures, as the e-mail clearly stated, would be a very poor way to do this lol.

For what the actual data says of the last 10 years this thread is a good place to start. Basically statisticians were given the global temperature data from 4 different sources without knowing what was being represented. They were then asked if there was a trend since 1950 to which they all said yes, and if there was evidence of any change in that trend in the last 10 years to which they all said no.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157616&highlight=blinded+temperature

 

[Cynic]

This certainly provide evidence that current temperatures are high enough to cause this melting. It does not provide evidence that temperatures have continued to increase during the time frame referenced in the OP.

The mere fact that it is still melting doesn't, no, though a proper analysis of the rate of melt and the factors that influence could infer it locally, perhaps. Gore says the melt is accelerating, though I'm not privvy to his source (haven't looked) or how they performed their analysis.

 

[lomiller]

Well, the term "long-term" means different things to different people. I would think that any reputable climate scientist would select a time frame that is relevant to the phenomenon he or she wants to study. In the case of AGW this would necessarily limit the time frame to (at the outside) the length of time that humans have existed. Within that limit the scientist would have to determine the period during which the actual detectable influence of humans on climate would likely have occurred. This could not avoid having at least some level of arbitrariness (is that a word?) to it.

The natural variation present in the climate make it impossible to make any conclusive statements about trend for periods under ~20 years. The error bands on shorter trends are simply to large to say anything conclusive. This isn’t arbitrary, and there are well understood methods for determining it.

In terms of how the current change compared to past climate, wikipedia has a well cited graph of peer reviewed temperatures reconstructions.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

[lomiller]

The mere fact that it is still melting doesn't, no, though a proper analysis of the rate of melt and the factors that influence could infer it locally, perhaps. Gore says the melt is accelerating, though I'm not privvy to his source (haven't looked) or how they performed their analysis.

The decline is clear and well outside random variation

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg


At least some analysis from the NSIDC suggests the decaline is accelerating.

 

[rain]

sorry for accidental double-post

 

[Steve]

When talking about long-term global climate change, how do you figure that? Would you want to study global climate over the longest period of time possible?

Just to elaborate on this, with an exaggeration to clarify my point - a climate scientist could be interested in studying climate over "really" long periods, say 100 million years. Over this time frame it would be discovered that there was a significant length of time in the distant past where the climate was warmer than it is today. It could then be superficially claimed that the general trend over the last 100 million years is a cooling climate. A study of climate over this length of time would have no more relevance to the current climate situation that your example of studying yesterday. Selecting a relevant time period to study is necessary component of a successful study.