Juan_Bottom wrote:And PLAYER57832, I can't tell which side you are on? Do you believe in global climate change???
Yes, I absolutely do believe our climate is changing due to both natural and human -driven causes.
As for my "side" my ULTIMATE side is to try and get folks to do a better job of understanding science and science criticism.
I don't understand what you mean by this- "I see the answer was already posted. Half information can give a pretty wrong picture"
First, the figure you quoted were actually a bit high, BUT here is the thing. A half a degree change doesn't sound like much. I mean, the temperature this morning was 70 and it will likely go over 100 before long. BUT on a world-wide scale it IS phenomenal.
Second, the part you missed is the length of time involved in previous temperature changes. This was already stated above, quite well. I won't repeat.
And here is where I get into the "undersanding science" bit.
As I did say, it is pretty easy to get bogus data, find completely uncredible websites. Any joker can set one up in a few minutes. Put a bit more effort in and you can even bring in all kinds of supporting "data", etc. THAT is not even counting the number of cases where honest folks just make mistakes ... either do not fully understand (for example, arguing that at most, the change worldwide has only been 1/2 a degree -- true ... and 1/2 a degree is QUITE SIGNIFICANT on a worldwide scale) just plain read or misinterpret data (scientists can do this, too). ETC. AND, here is the really critical part, unless you are working within the field and have real data available, it is very difficult to know whether the site is providing real, mistaken or downright fraudulant information.
THAT, the difficulty in assessing data, in understanding what is going on with the data, is why the standard for science is the "peer-reviewed journal". Now, the frauds have gotten smart there, too. There are (gasp) journals that are NOT really peer-reviewed, OR that are reviewed solely by scientists who have a specific agenda. Sometimes it is true fraud (intending to deceive) and sometimes it is a case of just "overlooking" or discarding data that does not agree. Strange how if someone is offering you 5,000,000 to come up with a certain result, there is a strong tendancy for even the most honest of scientists to find the "correct" answer.
I had this happen to me, even when working for the government. I came up with some conclusions with which my bosses did not agree. I was told A. it was "irrelevant" B. that I had "erred" ( I had not). and finally, that I had "used the wrong technique" (though I was using the specified technique). A switch was made to a different methodology ... for cost reasons, to remain consistant with previous data. NOTE: sometimes it IS better to keep with an older flawed technique used for a long time. It allows you to really compare data and, since the flaws/error rates are widely known in well-used techniques, it is easier for scientists to discuss results. Newer techniques might be slightly more accurate (or a lot more), but lose practicality if they cannot be compared to previous data. Often it is the CHANGES, not the absolute numbers that are important. Anyway, so, it could be quite legitimately argued that my information was disgarded because, even if the data was actually better, it could not be so readily compared to previous data, etc. HOWEVER, as any scientist will tell you ... it is strangely cooincidental how often these decisions are made in ways that promote the answer the bosses want. Understand, I am talking over and above actual fraud. I am talking subtleties that are very hard to discuss with anyone not having intimate knowledge of the field. ... and this general scenario applies to ALL fields.
So, within all fields there are certain journals that are widely accepted certain ones that are accepted ... cautiously, and others that are roundly condemned. In medicine, for example, the Journal of American Medical Associationg (JAMA) is pretty much the "gold" standard. Some publicatons put out by the government are almost as credible, but still considered "grey" literature (greater chance of being biased than, say a JAMA article). Publications by pharmaceutical companies ... would generally be considered biased... maybe correct, but you have to look at the data and methodology a lot more closely. (which is why companies will try to publish in JAMA, if possible) Even the "best" can be wrong, but the chances are far less than in one of the other types of publications.
Now, FINDING those articles can be quite difficult. Usually, you have to subscribe, pay money to get access to the real articles on the internet. If you have access to a university with studies in that particular field, you are lucky. IF, however, you live in the "boonies", such as I do, then it becomes sometimes impossible or just too difficult. THAT is why I don't often go out and get those articles. Also, for the most part, I find that certain individuals really don't care about any publications with which they disagree. I would rather try to spend a little bit of effort critiquing their information gathering
process, rather than countering the informatio itself.
-I have asked twice if I missed something. And I still can't see a direct correlation between todays temp, and any man-made cause. But then, you may be agreeing with me?
Okay, let's get one thing straight. In science absolute direct correlations are VERY RARE.
But, look at the consequences of being wrong.
I am going to jump to another field because the example is so very clear. A woman ecologist looked at her womb as an environment. On the one hand, as a scientist she was well aware how hard it was to prove that this chemical or that chemical would harm her child inside. BUT, as a mother, she had to say that at some point we just have to say that I don't NEED 100% verification that chemical XYZ is going to harm my child. As a mother, if there is a chance, then I don't want my child exposed to chemical XYZ. Combine the two and you get a middle ground where you weigh the chance of harm against the possibility of harm. Insurance companies call this "risk assessment".
Are we 100% sure waht is happening in the world around? Not absolutely. BUT, we are sure that things are changing. Most of us would just as soon see things like weather, ocean levels and so forth stay as they are. ANY change is probably bad for human beings. SO, it behooves us to take precautions, to study more and to try and prevent the biggest changes EVEN IF we are not sure.
In the case of global warming, though the data is not abosolute 100%, the date is pretty good. On a scale you might put it as a 95% surity level. Many would say much higher, but I am being conservative.
Finally, to something mentioned earlier. Global warming is sort of even a misnomer. Small changes in temperatures do a lot of funny things to weather. The short is that weather across much of the world will be more violent, more extreme in all directions. That doesn't mean the changes are not happening (remember what I said about speaking truth, but not understanding what it really means?) it means that weather is very, very, very complex. Just to give you one example, when the sea temperature in the Gulf of Mexico rises, the coastal south gets more hurricanes. This is why there is a rough "season" for hurricanes from spring to fall. (not precise, but roughly ... other things cause hurricanes, modify them... again, weather is complex). On the other hand, some of the same types of events elsewhere can cause a blizzard over the Pacific.
Ever hear of the "butterfly theory?" The basic idea is that a butterfly flaps its wings down in south america, which moves air currents, which move others .... etc, etc. until finally, it turns out that maybe the real trigger for a hurricane was that butterfly wing's flaps. Now, to really get into this means getting into chaos math theories. But, let's just say that no one expects to ever be able to predict which butterfly flap will do what .. or even to really be able to prove that that is what happened. It is sort of a philisophical idea as much as anything else. A concept that many, many micro-changes work together to create the weather we have now, instead of a few very big changes.
THAT is what completely irritates a lot of "linear thinking" business folks. The "A-type" personality typically doesn't like "fuzziness" or lack of absolute proof. BUT, in science, especially natural sciences, that is reality. Interestingly, though a lot of these hard-driven corporations are actually spending a good deal of time now thinking about what to do "if". THAT, itself probably speaks far louder than anything else in some ways.
(interestingly, markets actually work chaotically as well... but that's another topic).
.
And even if it did, that would be human caused, too. 
) change your mind. It is a solar cycle. And it isn't just our sun that does it. Solar variation isn't even new.