Is there any proof that global warming is fake?

Answer 1

There is no proof that global warming is not happening. After the recent record global average temperature of 1998, there was a lull, with subsequent years recording lower average temperatures, but this is to be expected as part of normal climate fluctuations. Some optimists nevertheless saw that as proof that global warming had stopped, or even reversed. However, the year 2005 matched the average global temperature of 1998, then 2010 actually exceeded that temperature by a fraction of a degree. There is therefore no proof that global warming is not happening.

A:

Many people think the the Earth is going through "global warming". Is it fact or just a therory? Well, from what I have learned (from my theacher and his long speaches) that "global warming" is fake. The Earth goes through a cylcle of changing weather. One day it may be cold. Then the next it's hot. The Earth's weather is just like that. Antarctica (the place of the so called "global warming") has been frozen, and frozen very well. In fact it's been frozen forever. The temperature there on about August 20th was at about -10 degrees. That's pretty cold! If you have internet on your Wii go to the weather channel and you can look at the globe to see places weather daily. That's just a little something you can do. In a nut shell, the Earth is not going through "global warming".

Also, Antarctica has actually cooled. Dr. Peter Norman and his colleagues have found out that since 1986 Antarctica has been cooling an average of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. Also, the earth is coller now than it was 1000 years ago. In which was known as the Medieval Warming Period the temperature was warmer than it was in the 1990s and the Medieval Warming Period was before the industrial revolution and the emission of greenhouse gases.

If we are to assume, as we have been instructed to do so, that global warming refers to the main induced portion of the current warming cycle, we have some interesting data.

The planet appears to have cooled this past year.

Sea level has not increased as predicted and has actually been slower presently than past decades.

Sea level has even gone down 6 mm this past year.

The bulk of the planets warming happened before 1939. we are only a few tenths of a degree (plus or minus a few tenths) away from the temperatures of 1938

The Antarctic has not seen overall ice loss.

CO2 has always followed temperature.

Despite massive increases in the use of fossil fuels, we saw global cooing from 1939 until 1979. The years 1939, 1998 and 2010 are almost identical, with cooling between those years.

IPCC models have not been able to reproduce current warming and cooing trends.

The IPCC admits in their policymakers paper that the interaction of water vapor (the predominant greenhouse gas) is still not fully understood.

UAH Satellite documentation shows cooling of lower troposphere to 0.09 degrees below the 1981 average for that layer of atmosphere.

Answer

What do you mean? Global warming exists. It's reality.

Answer

Even prior to the current cooling, between 1975 and 1998, when global average annual temperatures were supposedly going up, there is now considerable reason to doubt that they were reallygoing up. See the link below to surfacestations.org. It appears that 87% of the temperature-recording stations in the US alone are located within 30 meters of an artificial heat source, which biases temperatures upward by at least 1oC. By my own calculations, the US's portion of the "official temperature record" has an average bias of slightly more than 3oC. Since the US makes up 9% of the land area on the planet, even if the rest of the world's temperature recording stations are completely unbiased (not likely), the bias in the US alone accounts for 0.27oC, or nearly half of the 0.6oC increase in global average annual temperature observed over the last 40 years. But it is more likely that, at least in Canada, Europe, and China, the observations are subject to some degree of positive bias. It would not surprise me at all if, once all of these biases were quantified, the actualtemperature has not gone up at all over the last 40 years, and may have gone down.

In any event, the analysis by surfacestations.org proves that actual temperatures have not gone up nearly as rapidly as the 0.15oC per decade claimed. This is a crucial point because alarmists have finally been forced to admit not only that global warming occurred in the past, in a regular, 1,000-year cycle (the last three episodes are now called the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods), but that the peak temperatures during all three of these past events exceeded the highest temperatures achieved during the "current" warm period. So now they have fallen back on the claim that the "current" warming is unique because of how rapidly temperatures have been rising, continually pointing to that 0.15oC per decade statistic. But that statistic is now proven to be positively biased, and the actual rate of warming, even if the only the US's temperatures are biased, is only about 0.08oC per decade. This puts it below the rate of warming of all three of the previous warm periods. So once again we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that the current warming is not unusual at all. Answer The El Nino of 1997-1998 was the strongest on record, and is one of the major (but not only) reasons for the record heat. The temperature has not been going down since 1998 - it has remained high, and in fact the hottest decade in recorded history followed. But no, none of those years were as hot as 1998. Obviously, since then the SOI has oscillated as it always does and there have been multiple La Ninas and El Ninos since; I'm not sure what one would derive from that in terms of denialist arguments.

The record of temperatures is far more robust than volunteer United States stations. The warming has been verified at all levels of the troposphere, in ocean temperatures and in innumerable proxy records. This issue has been addressed.

Temperatures declined prior to the 1970's slightly due to the large amount of aerosols that were being pumped into the atmosphere by countries such as the United States; aerosols have a net cooling affect. We are now seeing the same thing in India and China, and this is even evidenced in temperature trends that have leveled off or slightly declined in that region.

Furthermore, temperatures now are warmer than they were during the Medieval Warm Period or the prior two (and there is really far too much uncertainty for temperatures going back this far). This statement otherwise was popularized by Ray Evans, who cites a figure taken from a paper (Grootes et al. 1993) which simply is not there, it does not exist. The figure, that is, not the paper.

And since the current warming doesn't fall in line with any natural cycle, real or fictitious, where does that leave us? No, it doesn't leave us with the conclusion that the current warming is anthropogenic. That would be lazy and dishonest science. We have come to that conclusion for many, many reasons. We know what the radiative properties of CO2 are from studies done in the 19th century; this is solid. We know how much CO2 and other greenhouse gases we have liberated into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. We have observed the rise in temperature, accounted for error and uncertainty, and have been doing this since before Al Gore ever noticed it was getting hotter. Climate models can do a remarkably good job of recreating the observed temperature, but they can only do it with an input of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Without them, they show a slight cooling, which deviates markedly from the trend of the last several decades.

Answer The current decade MAY be the hottest on record. All that proves is that we hit the maximum during the current decade. Even after adjusting for El Ninos and other fluctuations, the 5-year average of global average temperatures has definitely turned downward. Is this just a bigger fluctuation? Or is it a sign of things to come? Nobody knows yet.

Temperature is what global warming is all about. Proxy data are just estimates of actual temperatures, and there are many sources of error in these estimates. For that matter, as illustrated by Anthony Watts, recorded temperatures are only estimates of actual temperatures, and they are particularly bad estimates in some cases, with confirmed positive bias of over 5 degrees C in some cases. What global warming theory says is that, if global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses, there will be more warming in the upper troposphere than at the surface. The observational data, by satellites, shows exactly the opposite. So, even if the upper troposphere really is warming, it's warming more slowly than the surface. This clearly points to a cause other than greenhouse gasses.

Answer

It does exist. Evidence supporting its existence is extensive. For one, based on geological data and evidence, the Earth is supposed to be in a period of cooling, but instead our temperatures have risen 0.74ºC (from 1906-2006). Our temperatures have only continued to rise, and are projected to rise anywhere between 1.8 to 4.6ºC in the next 100 years. This is an exponential increase, as from the time of the last ice age to now, the Earth's mean surface temperature only increased 3.5ºC.

Our rising sea levels indicate global warming, not merely due to melting ice caps, but also because when water warms, the molecules expand.

A more accurate term than global warming is global climate change, as not all areas will warm, and climate change will not be uniform.

People who say global climate change/warming does not exist do not have concrete scientific facts to dismantle the basic facts: that greenhouse gases are increasing, and are directly correlated with the raise in the temperature in many places of the world.

Answer

We were warming over the last couple of centuries, and the warming now appears to have stopped.

I do not dispute that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing. Nor do I dispute that temperatures were increasing from around 1975 to around 2000, and that there is, therefore, some degree of correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature. However, correlation does not prove causation. Take a statistics class and you will learn this. Statistics classes are chock full of examples of two things that are highly correlated but cannot possibly have a causal relationship. For example, some statistician found a high correlation between the stork population in a French city and the human Birth Rate in the same city. He concluded that storks delivered babies. Of course, he was not serious, but was trying to prove the absurdity of equating correlation and causation.

Answer 2

There is no proof that global warming is not happening. In fact, quite the opposite: there is now undeniable proof that the world is indeed warming up.

Over the past two decades, three independent groups have used varying statistical methods and yet arrived at nearly identical conclusion that the planet's surface, on average, has warmed about 0.75 degree since the beginning of the twentieth century. This should be conclusive evidence that their measurements are accurate, but Richard Muller, a Physics Professor and longtime critic of climate studies, believed otherwise. In particular, he believed that insufficient correction had been allowed for those measuring devices that were originally located in rural areas but were now surrounded by suburbs, since urbanisation tends to result in local temperature rises.

Professor Muller launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project at the University of California, Berkeley, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of sceptics who believe global warming is exaggerated. But Professor Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing that the work of the three principal groups that have analysed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent ... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups." Professor Muller acknowledged that previous studies accounted for the urban effect. "Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming?" he asked in his written testimony. "We've studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no."

The work of climate scientists has passed the most rigorous examination, with a finding that it is excellent work and that due allowance has been made for likely variables.