Significant Global Warming显着的全球气候变暖
January 22nd, 2007 · by David Bradley 2007年1月22日，大卫布拉德利
Nowhere is the issue of significant figures currently more important than in the debate on anthropogenic climate change, global warming, and atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions.无处问题是显着的数字，目前更重要的，比在辩论中对人为气候变化，全球变暖，大气中二氧化碳的排放。 The number of blogs and news sites creating ever more extravagant claims for the role of human activity in climate change is truly set to rise.有多少Blog和新闻网站的创建以往任何时候都更奢侈索赔的作用，人类活动对气候变化的是真正树立上升。
Over on超过上 SEOblackhat.com seoblackhat.com there’s an interesting myth-busting session going on, that’s apparently being done in the context of a search engine optimization competition for gaming the phrase “GlobalWarming Awareness2007″, and it makes for interesting reading.有一个有趣的神话，破坏会议的进行，这显然是正在做，在一个搜索引擎优化的竞争游戏“ globalwarming awareness2007在” ，它使有趣读。 I’ve adapted a handful of the myths-truths reported their for your delectation.我已经适应了极少数的神话-真理报道，他们为您的delectation 。
- Myth: The Earth is 1, 2, 5 or 10 degrees warmer than it was 100 years ago.神话：地球是1 ， 2 ， 5或10度温暖比它100多年前。
- Truth: At most we’ve had an average 0.6 Celsius (and probably closer to 0.3 Celsius) increase over the last 100 years, that’sa barely measurable 0.003-0.006 degrees annually!真理：在最我们有平均0.6摄氏（大概接近0.3摄氏）增加超过过去100年来， that'sa勉强可衡量的0.003-0.006每年度！
- Myth: “I know Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring because it’s warmer here in Small Town.神话： “我知道人为的全球变暖正在发生，因为它的温暖，这里的小城镇。 I know it’s warmer, I can feel it.”我知道它的温暖，我能感受到它“ 。
- Truth: Higher local temperatures don’t mean a thing, as we’re talking about global averages here.真理：当地气温较高，并不意味着一件事情，正如我们谈论的全球平均水平在这里。
- Myth: Carbon dioxide levels and average global temperatures are at a record high in Earth’s history.神话：二氧化碳含量和全球平均气温正处于一个最高纪录，在地球的历史。
- Truth: No they’re not, carbon dioxide and temperatures are at some of the lowest levels going back millions of years.真理：没有他们没有，二氧化碳和温度是在一些最低水平回到以百万计的年。
- Myth: Rising carbon dioxide levels are directly linked to rising global temperatures.神话：上升的二氧化碳含量有直接联系全球气温上升。
- Truth: temperature rises seem to lag carbon dioxide rises by between 400 and 4000 years.真理：温度的升高，似乎落后的二氧化碳上升之间的400和四千年。
- Myth: Receding Ice Sheets is proof that anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring.神话：后退冰原，证明人为的全球变暖正在发生。
- Truth: The icecaps are melting.真相： icecaps融化。
- Truth: They might be on真理：他们可能会就 Mars火星 , but ，但 Antarctica is growing南极洲是越来越多 . 。
- Myth: Carbon dioxide is the biggest greenhouse gas.神话：二氧化碳是最大的温室气体。
- Truth: No, that’s真理：没有，这就是 water vapor水汽 , and methane is some twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide. ，甲烷是一些20倍以上烈性比二氧化碳。
- Myth: If we accept it’s real, we can do something about it.神话：如果我们接受它是真实的，我们可以做一些工作。
- Truth: Even if that 0.3-0.6 degree rise is down to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions none of the carbon offsetting in the world is going to make any difference, there’s no way we can suck out all that carbon dioxide and bury it at the bottom of the ocean to bring levels back down to the pre-industrial without using a whole lot more energy and producing a whole lot more emissions to boot in the process, solar and wind power or not.真理：即使0.3-0.6度上升，下降到人为的二氧化碳排放量没有碳，抵销了在世界上是去作任何的差别，有没有办法，我们可以吸出所有的二氧化碳和埋葬它在底部的海洋，使各级回落到前工业，而不使用整体很多更多的能源，产生了整个很多更多的排放量，以启动在这个过程中，太阳能和风能或没有。
- Myth: It must be true, they say so.神话：它必须是真的，他们这样说。
- Truth: What if it’sa lot of hot air?真相：如果这是大量的热空气？
Other Resources:其他资源：
- CO2 Skeptics二氧化碳怀疑论者
- DeSmogBlog desmogblog - Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science -结算公关污染云层气候科学
- Real Climate真正的气候
11 responses so far ↓ 11的反应到目前为止↓
Mark // 马克 / / Jan 22, 2007 at 8:09 pm 2007年1月22日在下午8时09分
According to an article on据一篇文章 chron.com today, many environmental scientists are admitting that they may have oversold the global warming issue.今天，很多环境科学家们承认他们可能超卖，全球气候变暖问题。
I quote: “In their efforts to capture the public’s attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming?我引述如下： “在他们的努力来捕捉公众的注意力，那么，有气候科学家超卖全球变暖？ It’s probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.它的可能不是多数人的意见，但有几个气候科学家开始质疑，是否有些可怕的预言，推动科学太远。
‘Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster,’ says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.” '我们有些人不知道，如果我们建立了一个怪物， '说，凯文弗拉内什，气候科学家在科罗拉多大学“ 。
Shirley // 雪莉 / / Jan 23, 2007 at 11:19 am 2007年1月23日在上午11时19分
So, are we going to get an ice age instead?因此，我们要得到一个冰河时代不是？
moshu moshu // / / Jan 24, 2007 at 6:23 am 2007年1月24日在上午06时23分
I was questioning the antropogenic global warming just based on my classic humanistic education: hubris, I said.我质疑antropogenic全球气候变暖的只是根据我的古典人文教育：傲慢，我说。
Now I am glad that scientists have doubts, too.现在我很高兴科学家们怀疑，太。
Phil 菲尔 // / / Jan 25, 2007 at 3:40 pm 2007年1月25日在下午3时40分
Washington Times has an interesting take on teh supposed melting away of Greenland and its impact on sea levels.华盛顿时报有一个有趣的，对假定熔化消失，格陵兰和其影响，海平面升高。
“The satellite data (analyzed by NASA’s Scott Luthcke in the journal Science less than two months ago) show a reduction of 3 hundred-thousandths of Greenland’s total ice per year. “卫星数据（分析，由美国航天局的斯科特luthcke在科学杂志上不到两个月前）显示，减少了3 100 -千分之一格陵兰的总冰每年。
Multiplying the satellite-based figure by 23 feet, which is what others have claimed would be the rise if the whole of Greenland’s ice melted into the sea, gives the annual rise in sea level of .01 inch per year.乘以以卫星为基础的数字23英尺，而这正是其他声称将上升，如果整个格陵兰岛的冰融化入海，给一年一度的海平面将上升的0.01英寸左右。
Averaged over three decades, that’sa third of an inch, which indeed is too small to be detectable.平均每场超过3几十年来， that'sa三分之一的1英寸，这的确是太小，可探测性。
Consider that melt over a century and it’s little more than an inch.认为熔体超过一个世纪，它的稍多于一英寸。 That’s not really enough to make anyone with a beach house worry is it?这不是真的足以使任何一个泳滩内务担心是什么呢？
Clive // 克莱夫 / / Jan 29, 2007 at 3:47 pm 2007年1月29日在下午3时47分
US Senate Committee美国参议院委员会 site says: “The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming.网站说： “天气channelâ € ™最突出的气候是主张播出的气象学家被剥夺他们的科学认证，如果他们表达怀疑的预测，人工灾难性的全球变暖。 This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.”这一最新呼吁沉默的怀疑论者如下1年（ 2006年） ，其中持怀疑态度的人相比， “大屠杀deniers ”纽伦堡式的战争罪审判被提倡的几个气候危言耸听“ 。
Ridiculous!!!可笑！ I thought this was a free country.我以为这是一个自由的国度。
David Bradley 大卫布拉德利 // / / Feb 18, 2007 at 5:39 pm 2007年2月18日在下午5时39分
My skeptical remarks about climate change continue to be vindicated.我持怀疑态度的言论，对气候变化继续予以平反。 In在…内 The Times时代 this week, Nigel Calder former editor at my old virtual stamping ground New Scientist, points out the same issue I did regarding the 10% uncertainty being an enormous issue, scientifically speaking.这个星期，奈杰尔加德尔的前任编辑在我的老虚拟冲压地面新科学家指出，同样的问题我本来就10 ％的不确定性作为一个巨大的问题，科学地发言。 He also mentions various other problems such as the fact that despite a lot of quacking about migrant birds moving earlier than they ought, “in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago?”他还提到了其他各种问题，如事实，即尽管很多quacking约候鸟移动早于他们应该“ ，在东南极洲的adã ©谎言企鹅及歌连臣角海燕正在转向在春季产卵的地点靠近九天不迟他们50年前“ ？
Moreover, Calder adds, “While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.”此外，考尔德说， “虽然海冰已大为减少，在北极地区自1978年以来，它增长了8 ％ ，在南大洋” 。
So, what’s going on?所以，怎么回事？ Is climate change a scam?是气候变化的一个骗局？ Is the changing sun the real driving force, and not anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels?是不断变化的太阳的真正动力，而不是人为二氧化碳水平？
David Bradley 大卫布拉德利 // / / Apr 27, 2007 at 2:14 pm 2007年4月27日在下午2时14分
Interesting post on有趣的后对 http://www.quickrob.com/weblog/?p=961 about the irrational points of view regarding global warming that we hear from DiCaprio, Crowe, Gore et alia关于非理性的角度来看，就全球气候变暖，我们听到从迪卡普里奥，罗素克洛，戈尔等，除其他外
Dino 迪诺 // / / Jun 11, 2007 at 3:02 pm 2007年6月11日在下午3时02分
I come from Malaysia.我来自马来西亚。 There’s lots of tropical rainforest here.有大量的热带雨林在这里。 Many of the trees here in my country are actually the tallest tropical trees in the world.许多树木，在这里我的国家，其实是最高的热带树木，在世界上。
Since 2000, I’ve observed many of the bigger trees dying out….slowly, insidiously.自2000年以来，我已经观察到许多的更大的树木消亡… … 。慢慢地，不知不觉。 Looking across the rainforest silhouette, I notice even a slight thinning of the canopy and many emergent trees downsizing their branches, crowns getting smaller, gnarly….纵观各雨林人影，我留意到，甚至有轻微变薄天篷和许多新兴的树木瘦身及其分支机构，冠变得越来越小， gnarly … 。
What could be the reason?什么可以，原因为何？ A patch of primary forest I used to visit for 5 years straight, saw many big trees falling or just withering…补丁的原始森林我曾经访问为五年直，看到不少大树下降或只是萎缩…
Pictures 20 years ago of the canopy of a particular patch, and pictures of the exact same spot today, show degradation in the canopy structure, with many big trees missing and replaced with smaller ones…and mind you this patch is a virgin jungle with no logging.图片20年前的天篷某一特定修补程序，和照片一模一样的现货今天，显示退化，在冠层结构，不少大树失踪，并代之以规模较小的… …并请注意此修补程序是美属维尔京丛林中没有测井。 Its not obvious if no one told you or showed you the two pics - then and now…其并不明显，如果没有人告诉你或你表明，这两个照片-当时和现在…
I’ma very observant person and so I notice these things…it’s pretty alarming from a certain standpoint.我很细心的人，所以我的通知，这些东西… …它的相当惊人，从某个角度。
This may or may not indicate global warming, I dont know, but primary rainforests are supposed to be very stable habitats, with little change.这可能或不可能表明，全球气候变暖，我不知道，但主要的热带雨林正以非常稳定的栖息地，与变化不大。
David Bradley 大卫布拉德利 // / / Jun 11, 2007 at 10:20 pm 2007年6月11日在下午10时20分
Dino, there has never been a period in earth’s history when it has been entirely stable without any change, there are always climatic, geologic, and cosmic events that influence the equilibrium.迪诺，从未有过一个时期，地球的历史时，它已完全稳定，没有任何改变，都会有气候，地质，和宇宙事件的影响平衡。 As a species, we have only really been observing things, as well as we may for a few years.作为一个物种，我们只有真正被观测的东西，以及我们可能会在数年。 We are experiencing climate change, of course, that’s part of the nature of the planet on which we live.我们正在经历气候变化，当然，这部分的性质的我们所生活的地球。 Whether it is going to take us to an undesirable equilibrium point some time in the future, is the problem both sides of the debate will not know until we reach that time.无论是去把我们带到一个不良的平衡点，一段时间在未来的日子，问题是双方的辩论将不知道，直到我们达到这个时间。
John M. Quinn // 约翰米奎因 / / May 2, 2008 at 10:14 pm 2008年5月2日在下午10时14分
Your “Truth” That Temperature changes LAG CO2 Changes by 400 to 400 years is, I believe, erroneous.您的“真相”说，温度的变化滞后CO2的变化，由400至400年，我相信，错误的。 The Truth that I know is that during four interglatial periods (ie, going from an ice age to a warming period) temperature changes LAGGED CO2 changes by 800 +/- 200 years.真相，我知道的是，在4 interglatial期（即，从一个冰河时代的一个变暖的时期）的温度变化滞后， CO2的变化，由800 + / -二百年。 This is based on the 400,000 year long VOSTOK, Antarctica ice core.这是的基础上，四十万年长期沃斯托克，南极洲冰芯。 Ref: Monnin et al., Atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last glacial terminaation, Nature, 291 pp.档号： monnin等人，大气CO2浓度超过末次冰期terminaation ，性质， 291页。 112-114 (2001) 112-114 （ 2001 ）
David Bradley 大卫布拉德利 // / / May 3, 2008 at 1:18 pm 2008年5月3日在下午1时18分
Hi John喜约翰
Thanks for the correction, I will double check the sources on this and correct as appropriate.感谢更正，我会仔细检查来源，对这个问题的正确适当。
db分贝
Leave a Comment留下意见