Click me
Transcribed

The Global Warming Skeptics Vs. The Scientific Consensus

InformationIsBeautiful.net X vs Y No 2 THE GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS Vs THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS We don't believe there is any credible evidence that mankind's activities are the cause of global warming - if that's even happening at all. At best, there's only circumstantial evidence of a link between carbon dioxide levels and rising global temperatures. The earth's climate is rapidly warming. The cause is a thickening layer of carbon dioxide pollution, caused by humanity's activities. It traps heat in the atmosphere, creating a "greenhouse effect" which heats the earth. A rise in global temperatures of 3 to 9 degrees centigrade will cause devastation. Rising CO2 levels are not always linked with rising A single graph for a single, small area is not enough temperatures evidence You can't draw conclusions about the warming of the entire planet just by looking at a small area. It's like comparing apples and pears. Because of extreme weather, Arctic 1.0°C Arctic temperature temperature is often a dramatic barometer of global climate. But Arctic temperatures don't match human CO2 emissions. 0.0 It's impossible to tell what caused the warming of the Arctic in the 1930's. Or whether it's the same mechanism that's causing global warming today. CO levels fossil fuel oil usage coal 1.0C 1880 1940 2000 source: Polyakov et al 2002, NASA In the past, CO2 rises have occurred after We don't claim CO2 caused temperature rises in the temperature rises past. We say, because of its greenhouse effect, CO2 makes natural Recognise this from The Inconvenient Truth? Al Gore famously showed that temperature and CO2 are clearly linked back over 400,000 years. But if temperature rises worse. Much worse in fact. you zoom in.. Global temperatures 900 years CO? levels 5000 years ...you see that CO2 levels rise 800 years after the temperature does. This massive lag proves that CO2 can't cause global warming! 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0. Historically, global warming cycles have lasted around 5000 years. The 800 year CO2 lag only shows that CO2 did not cause the first 16% thousands of years ago source: Vostok ice core, Petit et al 2002 of warming. The other 4200 years were likely to have been caused by a CO2 greenhouse effect. We don't even have accurate temperature records We do have accurate temperature records 90% of temperature recording stations are on land. Yet 70% of the world's surface is ocean. Distortion of temperature records is a very real phenomenon. But it's one climate scientists are well aware of. Global weather recording stations Detailed filters are used to remove the effect from the records. Cities and towns heat the atmosphere around land-based weather stations enough to distort the record of historical temperatures. It's called the 'urban heat island effect'. And it's why we can't trust temperature records. source: National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service It was actually hotter in medieval times than it is today In Medieval times, it was hotter in some areas of the world and not in others Between AD 800 and 1300, there was a Medieval Warm Period where This was likely a local warming, rather than a global warming event, and not equivalent to warming today. Ice cores show that there were periods of both cold and warmth at the same time. temperatures were very high. Grapes were grown in England. The Vikings colonized Greenland. Medieval Warm Period 2.5°C Global temperatures This occurred centuries before we began pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. More proof that CO2 and temperature are not linked. with O°C And there's no evidence it affected the southern hemisphere at all. The records also show that globally the earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees C) during the 'medieval warm period' than today. Because of this - and to make 20th -2.5°C B00 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 century warming look unique - UN scientists constantly play down this medieval period in their data. source: NESDIS (smoothed data) The famous "hockey stick" temperature graph has been discredited Reworked, enhanced versions still show the "hockey stick" shape The Original "Hockey Stick" A Modern "Hockey Stick" Graph The hockey stick is 8 years old. There are dozens of other newer, more Made famous by Al Gore, the "hockey stick" graph shows that 20th century temperatures are rising alarmingly. 0.5°C detailed temperature reconstructions. But the hockey stick appears or disappears depending on the statistical methods employed. 0°C Each one is different due to different methods and data. But they all show similar striking patterns: the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record. And that warming is most dramatic after 1920 (when industrial activity starting releasing CO2 into the atmosphere). So unreliable has it become, in fact, that the UN's International Panel On -0.5°C Climate Change dropped it from their 2007 report. 1880 1980 1400 1980 source: Author's composite Briffa, Anmann & Wahi, Mann 2003, Mann 1998 source: Mann et al 1998 Ice core data is unreliable Ice records are reliable Selected Ice Cores A lot of our temperature records come from measuring the gases trapped in ice cores. These are segments of deep ice unmelted for hundreds of thousands of years. Bubbles of trapped air acts as 'photographs' of the contents of the atmosphere going back millennia. Ice core data is taken from many different samples to reduce errors. Also, other evidence (temperature records, tree rings etc) back these readings up. All these results combined make the records very reliable. The predictions of future global warming don't depend on ice cores. But ice-cores are not "closed systems" that preserve ancient air perfectly. Air can get in and out. Water can also absorb the gases, But ice cores do show that the climate is sensitive to changes in cycles and that CO2 has a strong influence. changing the result. And deep ice is under huge amounts of pressure. Enough to squeeze gas out. Camp Century (13,000 years) Vostok (420,000 years) Milcent NorthGRIP EPICA Overall, CO2 levels from different ice cores are remarkably similar. (780 years) (123,000 years) (800,000 years) All in all this adds up to make ice cores unreliable. source: Wikipedia When the evidence doesn't fit, the scientists edit the Scientists correct their results when new evidence evidence comes to light CO2 levels ice at Siple (Arctic) Ice core data from Siple in the Arctic shows the concentrations of CO2 in No other ice core data in the world 350 shows CO2 levels rising above 290 parts per million in the last 650,000 years. It's possible it might have happened for a year or a day. But consistently, no. the atmosphere in 1890 to be 328 the original data the adjusted data parts per million. But, according to the consensus, that level was not reached until 1973. So the rise in CO2 levels happens 83 years too 328 ppm 300 Some areas of ice are more porous than others. At Siple, the more recent shallow ice was quite porous. So new air was able to circulate quite far down. That affected the record. early. To fix it, scientists moved the graph 83 years to the right to make the data exactly fit. 250 1744 1878 1891 1953 2000 Source: Neftel 1985, Friedli 1986 We detected and compensated for this. That's why the data has been shifted. CO2 only stays in the atmosphere for 5 to 10 years, not the 50-200 years stated by UN scientists When you take the entire, complex ocean-climate system into account, 50-200 years is more accurate CO2 is absorbed in 5 to 10 years by the shallow ocean. Not the deep ocean. It takes 50-200 years for CO2 to be mixed into the deep ocean where it stays. CO2 in the shallow ocean however is prone to escaping back into the atmosphere. So CO2 absorbed by the ocean often comes straight back out again. The ocean absorbs the CO2 so it can't accumulate to dangerous levels in the atmosphere. CO? absorption by the Oceans CO- In fact, the oceans are so vast they can absorb 50 times as much C02 atmos as there is in the atmosphere more than all the fossil fuels on the planet! "fertilizer" for plankton dissolved as carbonic acid shallow 5-10 years Conclusion: humans can't have ocean been emitting CO2 fast enough to account for all the extra CO2 in Also the more carbon the ocean co2 absorbs, the less it's able to absorb. It CO2 CO2 *CO2 shells, bones the atmosphere. becomes saturated. deep ocean dead plankton 50-200 years a very complex process. But if you take the entire ocean-climate system, full absorption of atmospheric CO2 takes around 50,000 years. Recent hacked emails show that top climate scientists conspired to hide and distort data Hacked emails show no organised conspiracy, no collusion and no manipulation of data "Trick" here means technique as in "trick to solving a problem" or One email from a scientist reads: "I've just completed Mike's .trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years .. to hide the decline." "trick of the trade" Climate scientists have grafted two sets of data together to make sure the graph shows rising temperatures, instead of a decline. The tree-ring data runs out in 1980. So the remaining years are reconstructed from more recent records. The separate curves for the different sets of data were clearly labeled (in the scientific literature). This "trick" conceals the fact that tree-ring data does not show a response to supposed "global warming" since 1960. In fact, it shows a decline in response! The decline in response occurs in only a certain type of tree-ring data (high-latitude tree-ring densities). Why there's a decline Because it doesn't match thermometer readings, this tree-ring data is considered unreliable from 1960 onwards. And, overall this tree-ring data is just one of numerous tree-ring records used to reconstruct unknown. past climate. SKEPTICAL CONCLUSION Man-made Co2 cannot be driving climate change CONSENSUS CONCLUSION Man-made CO2 emissions are driving climate change this time Whatever affects global temperatures and causes global warming is not CO2. Whatever the cause, it works like this. The cause affects the climate balance. Then the temperature changes accordingly. The oceans then adjust over a period of decades and centuries. Then the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. We don't claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages and warming cycles. What drives climate change has long been believed to be the variation in the earth's orbit around the sun over thousands of years. So the global panic about CO2 causing global warming is baseless and fear-mongering. The UN's reports on the matter are biased, unscientific In a normal warming cycle, the sun heats the earth, the earth gets hotter. The oceans warm up, releasing huge amounts of CO2. This creates a greenhouse effect that makes warming much, much more intense. and alarmist. That's why humanity's release of CO2 is so perilous. We're out of step with the natural cycle. And we haven't even got to the stage where the oceans warm up. Sources: Consensus sources: Lawrence Solomon, The Deniers (Richard Vigilante, 2008) "The Myth Of Dangerous Human-Caused CLimate Change" (RM Carter) Is The Earth Still Recovering From A Little Ice Age (Syun-Ichi Akasofu) RealClimate.org NOAA Sateillite And Information Service (Ncdc.noaa.gov) Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (Cdiac.ornl.gov) Grist.org For full sources and data http://www.informationisbeautiful.net David McCandless // v1.1// Dec 09 Additional research: Pearl Doughty White trom the new intographic book out in October 2009 InformationIsBeautiful.net The Visual Miscellaneum

The Global Warming Skeptics Vs. The Scientific Consensus

shared by judithgold on Nov 29
995 views
4 share
0 comments
This infographic presents both sides of the Global Warming Argument: the skeptics and the scientific argument. It presents the argument of one side with the counter argument of the other. It also prov...

Source

Unknown. Add a source

Category

Environment
Did you work on this visual? Claim credit!

Get a Quote

Embed Code

For hosted site:

Click the code to copy

For wordpress.com:

Click the code to copy
Customize size