The BBC (among other news) reported that the polar temperature on December 25th 2016 could break all records by a staggering 20 degrees celsius above the average for that time of the year.
Some would argue that this is merely an unusually warm winter. Nothing more than 'weather'. This may be the case, if examined on its own, however 2016 has broken all current records by some margin with each of the last 15 or so months (by my last count - I may be incorrect here): See image.
2016 Record Breaking Temperatures
Other people refer to the fact that the climate of the Earth is continually going through trends of cooling and warming. One thing about that particular argument is that these trends tend to take centuries and not years/decades.
Yet more people refer to record breaking cold weather in other parts of the world. The data that is presented is a global average. its measured in a consistent way in order to have a minimal local interference as possible. Could this data be questioned? Sure. Could it be wrong? Sure. However, there is much anecdotal and observable evidence that also supports the figures: melting of permafrost, recession of glaciers, shrinking of ice caps, alterations of migratory patterns, extended lives of insects (due to milder winters).
Of course I could still be incorrect. After all, science is built on the mistakes of those that have come before. One thing about a theory is that it can not be definitively proved correct so if you ask me to guarantee my argument, I simply cannot.
Ive been reading posts and websites by people who are in denial of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) - that is global climate change precipitated by man. It seems that they forget that science is not a liberal conspiracy. Its analysis of data. Data that we have had for decades. I can remember this conversation when I was in school twenty years ago and everything from then has checked out.
The other thing that I do think is ridiculous is a reliance on uncorroborated sources. No hard data, no clear information. No thesis or peer review.
Science has a process. Its simple. If you beleive that a theory is false, you should be able to break said theory. You should be able to come up with an experiment that the theory can not explain. The test should be reproducible and verified by peers (people of expertise in the field). It should be able to withstand attack and criticism.
To my knowledge, no such evidence is forthcoming. This is the same as other theories that come under the same non-peer denunciation such as evolution and the age of the Earth.
Climate scientists have been looking a trends in CO2 and in Global temperature records and have found a remarkable correlation between the two. It could be argued that a correlation does not equal a causality, but the fact is that the correlation is so close (both rise and fall together) that it is very difficult to deny the trend. Not only that, there is no widely accepted theory that provides an alternative explanation for what we are witnessing.
Correlation between CO2 and Temperature
Watch out for further posts on this topic soon.