How can we say we know for sure what trend the temperature is going when we only have accurate data?

Question

For a very brief amount of time compared to the amount of time the planet has been here. That is like saying that a dot on a graph shows a trend.

Answer 1

The issue with which we are dealing is the climate change which  can be observed and why it is occurring.  The scientific panel set up some years (IPCC) has concluded that it is very likely to be happening because of global warming. In their work they have built a number of mathematical models to show this.

The models which fit the data best are based on the impact of the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.  So based on these models they predict temperature change based on predictions of the amount of carbon being released.  

What you ask would be a very good question if a different type of model was being used.

Answer 2

Human discern...it's the best we got.Isn't that a thrill ride?

Answer 3

The problem is we DON'T have accurate data.. Climatologists and meteorologists have had to constantly re-adjust their models ... oh, and the models still don't work. Where were all the hurricanes that the global warning models predicted for 2007?

----------------

Too tired after a 10-hour day. ... No, I do not demand the right to approve all temperature readings derived from CO2 content of core samples and the like. ... but the overall change in global temperature has been set at 1 degree change over the last 100 years (per NASA) ... so any readings, models, extrapolations, etc., must have an accuracy rate of better than plus or minus 1 degree change per 100 years in order to be of much use.

Answer 4

It's almost like people who are saying such things are basing their statements not only on recent temperature trends, but also on an understanding of how CO2 affects longwave infrared transport through the atmosphere and on an understanding of atmospheric dynamics.  But since you're not, you're thinking it's just a dot on the graph, I can see why you would be confused about what they think and not believe it.  But just because people who are using more information and have a deeper understanding of climate physics are coming to a different conclusion than you are does not make them wrong.  Technical issues like this are weird in that uninformed lay opinions exemplified by your question often are at complete variance with what is in fact true.

Answer 5

Your link? What data? Are you just saying that according to you,all scientific means of collecting data,has to be approved by you? What criteria do you have to make the claims you do? Do you have any idea how scientists can tell what the climate was before the invention of the thermometer? Even something as simple as tree rings from 1,000 year old trees can reveal lots of real data! Don't you realize that when you try to discredit science by using opinions,you only show how ignorant you really are on the subect!

Bob says hello.  He just got tired trying to heal the self inflicted ignorance on here,but he will be back soon!

Answer 6

150 years of thermometer measurements, 600 - 800 years of excellent proxy temperature measurements that agree (using multiple techniques) and 1000+ years of fairly consistent proxy temperature measurements are definitely not like a single dot on a graph.  A trend can clearly be detected from the amount of data we do have.

It's not necessary to monitor the path of a comet flying in space for centuries to determine it's trajectory and it's heading. Science knows that things like comets don't suddenly decide to take a right turn or reverse it's direction.  The global temperature is no different, it isn't going to suddenly change course or reverse without some forcing being changed.

Understanding those forces and their reletive magnitude is what's important at determing where temperature is heading.  Having thermometer records for 1 million years wouldn't be as helpful as understanding the basic physics of temperature forcing, as far as projecting the future is concerned.