-1
$\begingroup$

Because the arctic temperature record would probably not require any of the climategate urban heat island adjustments it would seem to definitively sustain that global temperatures are significantly rising. This would seem to form the most unequivocal and verifiable proof that rhetoric to the contrary is simply false.

List of Arctic weather stations that are the source of the Arctic temperature record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_stations_in_the_Arctic

http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Arctic2017.png

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ No educated person doubts that there is climate change, for the simple reason there always has been for the last 4 billion years, and the trend at the moment is one of warming. How much of it is due to man-made emissions is debatable. One wonders how many more ways you can find of serving up the same question. $\endgroup$ – Michael Walsby Nov 23 '19 at 17:09
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelWalsby I must deconstruct every subtle nuance of climate change denial one key element at a time. The key element that seems to be utterly deconstructed here is that applying any weight what-so-ever to climate-gate rhetoric is incorrect. We can know for sure that the global temperature record is accurate on the basis that the Arctic temperature record sustains it. $\endgroup$ – polcott Nov 23 '19 at 17:23
  • $\begingroup$ Re I must deconstruct every subtle nuance of climate change denial one key element at a time -- Why? What compels you to tilt at this windmill? You will not convince the full-blown deniers; they are immune to logic and evidence. $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Nov 23 '19 at 17:38
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidHammen With the exception of forums such as this one where enough down votes can prevent someone from participating there don't seem to be any actual skeptics on social media platforms. $\endgroup$ – polcott Nov 23 '19 at 18:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ polcott I am totally against censorship and believe everyone should be allowed to have their say, even holocaust deniers. The rioters in Hong Kong claim to be rioting for more freedom and democracy, yet they attacked and seriously injured someone who took the central government's point of view. What is democratic about that? Freedom of speech is one of the main pillars of democracy. I am probably the only user with 2,000-plus reputation who has never downvoted anybody. The system is wide open to abuse, so I am boycotting it. $\endgroup$ – Michael Walsby Nov 23 '19 at 19:13
1
$\begingroup$

The recent spike in Greenland temperatures is almost at Holocene maximum levels despite the declining trend over the last 7,000 years.

Greenland ice cores provide a high-quality high-resolution estimate of past changes in temperatures, allowing more precise comparisons with observed temperature records than most other climate proxies. While current temperatures are likely still below the highs in the early Holocene around 7,000 years ago, they are clearly higher than any temperatures experienced in Greenland over the past 2,000 years.

Greenland is just one location and temperature variations seen in ice core records may not be characteristic of global temperatures. However, global proxy reconstructions have tended to show similar patterns, with current temperatures lower than the early Holocene maximum.

enter image description here What Greenland ice cores say about past and present climate change

$\endgroup$
-2
$\begingroup$

This isn't an answer, but too long for a comment.

The issues with this argument:

  • Is this data randomly sampled and reliable? Where does it come from?

  • How do you explain the temperature dip from 1940ish to 1965?

  • The area north of 60N makes up only 6.7% of the Earth's surface area. This increase could theoretically be balanced by a decrease in other area, such as Antarctica. To be fair, I don't think they would be, but an increase in 6.7% of the Earth's area isn't definitive.

  • As https://panethos.wordpress.com/2016/01/21/worlds-largest-cities-above-60-degrees-north-latitude/ notes, there are cities north of 60N (including Helsinki, the capital of Finland, with over 1/2 million people), so the urban heat island affect still exists.

You've asked similar questions before: keep looking for that "silver bullet" to prove global warming exist, but I doubt you'll find it. At some point, you'll have to define what "increasing" means when it comes to data that isn't strictly increasing.

@michael-walsby's comment "No educated person doubts that there is climate change" is just another example of personal attacks used in lieu of actual facts.

@david-hammen's comment is technically correct, but I'm not sure how many "full-blown deniers" there are. I personally believe there isn't enough evidence to determine whether the Earth's surface is cooling, warming, remaning about the same, and am further not convinced how dangerous warming would actually be.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I have added the source of the data to the original post. The whole purpose of this post is to to answer the question: Was the global temperature record faked? It really looks like the Arctic data that does not require the controversial urban heat island adjustments provides sufficient evidence that the global temperature record was not faked. $\endgroup$ – polcott Nov 23 '19 at 18:36
  • $\begingroup$ @BarryCarter -- Re I'm not sure how many "full-blown" deniers there are - You were one about 1000 days ago when you wrote I'm saying I don't believe there's sufficient evidence that the Earth has warmed at all. $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Nov 23 '19 at 19:07
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidHammenThat's the exact same position I have now. I still don't believe's there's sufficient evidence. $\endgroup$ – Barry Carter Nov 23 '19 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ The question you ask is if we can use Arctic data to represent (proxy) whole world data. Although I disclaimed I wasn't giving an answer, my points show why you can't do that: too small of an area, cities still exist that far north, data may not be randomly sampled (and thus unreliable) $\endgroup$ – Barry Carter Nov 23 '19 at 19:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BarryCarter The basic principle is that the sample must accurately represent the population. A random selection from this population is merely a means to this end. If we can empirically test that a sample does represent the population then randomness is not required. For example to get an accurate temperature of a room we don't have to test points at random, we only have to test points that have some basis for varying such as points near windows or heating ducts. $\endgroup$ – polcott Nov 23 '19 at 19:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.