Climategate?

A quick google comes up with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

Ian Rutherford Plimer (born February 12, 1946) is an Australian geologist, academic and businessman, and professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide. He is known as a prominent critic of creationism, and more recently for his skeptical views on man-made global warming.

Plimer is the author of around 60 academic papers and six books, including his book on the global warming debate, Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science (2009). He is a director of three mining companies.

...

Plimer is critical of what he sees as an irrational environmental movement and believes that the vast bulk of the scientific community, including most major scientific academies, is prejudiced by the prospect of research funding. He has characterised the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change so: "The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism" and "the IPCC process is unrelated to science".[16] He is critical of greenhouse gas politics and argues that extreme environmental changes are inevitable.

He's a sceptic, but then again so am I. I think he's overdoing the volcano CO2 a bit though, as the ash causes a drop in global temperatures.

Macha

Mahatma coat wrote: »

My Point is that its all spurious science, but you know that, you just cant come up with a counterargument thats not Based on spurious science, hence the Short responses which read in my mind as

"I know you are but what am I , NaNa Na NaNa"

Yet another example of simply stating your belief with no evidence. If the science is so "spurious", it shouldn't be so difficult to poke holes in it but you still haven't managed to do so.

You're friend's email contains no references or links. It simply throws out phrases like "solar activity" with little or no context or data. It also contains outright lies such as stating that the global temperature has gone done 0.7 degrees in the 20th century. The tone of it is also very unprofessional and wouldn't incline me to take it seriously.

Oscardela

The point about the volcanoes is one I have heard before and is sobering. The science attempts to show that the climate is changing, and on that everyone agrees.

What the science is less able to show is why the climate is changing at this point.

Mahatma coat

Macha wrote: »

Yet another example of simply stating your belief with no evidence. If the science is so "spurious", it shouldn't be so difficult to poke holes in it but you still haven't managed to do so.

You're friend's email contains no references or links. It simply throws out phrases like "solar activity" with little or no context or data. It also contains outright lies such as stating that the global temperature has gone done 0.7 degrees in the 20th century. The tone of it is also very unprofessional and wouldn't incline me to take it seriously.

Where is the EVIDENCE to Back your Assertions????????

Mahatma coat

Oh and by Evidence I mean actual Verifiable Data that can be Independently verified, So not the IPCC Report or any of the studies which cite it as a reference

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Where is the EVIDENCE to Back your Assertions????????

Which assertions are these? That the mean global temperature is increasing? That sea levels are rising? That Arctic ice levels are declining? That atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing? That mankind is most likely responsible for these increases? That carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse gas” and, as such, an increased concentration will lead to a greater amount of heat being retained within the geosphere? Help me out here.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Oh and by Evidence I mean actual Verifiable Data that can be Independently verified...

Independently verified by who?

Mahatma coat

djpbarry wrote: »

Which assertions are these?

Well lets look at your Assertions

That the mean global temperature is increasing?

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
But have they?? Current Data seems to indicate a Mean DROP in Global tempratures

That sea levels are rising?
http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/4347

Are they tho, I suppose you're thinking of Tuvalu, where it can be Shown that NO, the Sea levels are not Rising, the initial Story seemed to be an attempt by some Economic refugees to gain sympathy and Australian Visas

That Arctic ice levels are declining?

NAture has a way of balancing itself out tho, http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
the Antartic has more Ice than ever before, and the Arctic is Seasonal Shifts anyway.

That atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing?

And this is Bad Because???? Plants need Co2, we need plants, surely this is a good thing.

That mankind is most likely responsible for these increases?

Spurious Conjecture

That carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse gas” and, as such, an increased concentration will lead to a greater amount of heat being retained within the geosphere?

NO, CO2 is .039% of the Atmosphere, Water Vapour is over 2% yet this wasnt included in the calculations

Help me out here.

Does that help you to see that its Bulsh!t

Independently verified by who?

Anyone who dosent have a Vested interest in the Science producing the "Correct"Results fort Grant Funding

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
But have they?? Current Data seems to indicate a Mean DROP in Global temperatures

You’re telling me that because January 2008 was much colder than January 2007, mean global temperatures are declining? You don’t think we should be looking at a slightly longer timeframe with slightly more data points from which to extract a trend? For example, what’s the overall trend in that graph you’ve linked to? I’d say it’s upward, wouldn’t you?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Are they tho, I suppose you're thinking of Tuvalu...

No, I’m thinking of NASA, who report average sea levels are currently rising at approximately 3.28mm per annum.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

NAture has a way of balancing itself out tho, http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
the Antartic has more Ice than ever before, and the Arctic is Seasonal Shifts anyway.

Did you actually read that article you’ve linked to? Antarctica has been a substantial amount of ice per year and the rate at which it is losing ice is accelerating:
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=242

As for the Arctic, obviously there is seasonal variation, but the extent of Arctic sea ice is still declining by approximately 11% per decade.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

And this is Bad Because???? Plants need Co2, we need plants, surely this is a good thing.

Humans need oxygen – do we need more oxygen in the atmosphere?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Spurious Conjecture

No, it’s not. From the site you linked to:



Emissions correlate with atmospheric levels. Not only that, but an isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 confirms an increase in carbon derived from fossil fuel combustion:

“The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

NO, CO2 is .039% of the Atmosphere, Water Vapour is over 2% yet this wasnt included in the calculations

You didn’t answer the question – is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? And what “calculations” are you referring to? Do you honestly believe that water vapour is not accounted for in climate models?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Anyone who dosent have a Vested interest in the Science producing the "Correct"Results fort Grant Funding

I see. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that any scientist who produces results supporting the anthropogenic global warming theory will be dismissed by yourself as having a “vested interest in the science producing the correct results for grant funding”. Or let’s put that another way: how do you decide who has a vested interest and who does not? Based on the results they produce?

mgmt

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re telling me that because January 2008 was much colder than January 2007, mean global temperatures are declining? You don’t think we should be looking at a slightly longer timeframe with slightly more data points from which to extract a trend?

How convenient, ignore the thousands of years of rising and falling temperatures and just focus on 60 years of warming.

No, I’m thinking of NASA, who report average sea levels are currently rising at approximately 3.28mm per annum.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.txt

Where's the 3.28mm rise??

Did you actually read that article you’ve linked to? Antarctica has been a substantial amount of ice per year and the rate at which it is losing ice is accelerating:

http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191




Why don't you admit you hate capitalism and you want to use dubious green politics to implement your red agenda?

djpbarry

mgmt wrote: »

How convenient, ignore the thousands of years of rising and falling temperatures and just focus on 60 years of warming.

I don’t know about you, but I’m quite happy that there are scientists working to explain why our planet has begun to warm over the past number of decades. Would you rather they just dismiss it as “natural variation”?

mgmt wrote: »

Where's the 3.28mm rise??

Right here. You can take NASA’s measure derived from satellite data (3.28 mm/year, 1993 - present) or from ground data (1.70 mm/year, 1870 - 2000). Either way, global sea levels are unquestionably rising. I don’t know what it is you’ve linked to?

mgmt wrote: »

Why don't you admit you hate capitalism and you want to use dubious green politics to implement your red agenda?

Less of the personal comments and conspiracy nonsense please.

mgmt

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t know about you, but I’m quite happy that there are scientists working to explain why our planet has begun to warm over the past number of decades. Would you rather they just dismiss it as “natural variation”?

Yes. Untill they're is scientific independence in the IPCC, i.e. no political interference, I do not trust one word from them.

Right here. You can take NASA’s measure derived from satellite data (3.28 mm/year, 1993 - present) or from ground data (1.70 mm/year, 1870 - 2000). Either way, global sea levels are unquestionably rising. I don’t know what it is you’ve linked to?

Where is the data for the period before 1870?? You know before 'AGW'. Does it follow the same upward trend?? The graph is pretty meaningless otherwise.

Less of the personal comments and conspiracy nonsense please.

Agreed

djpbarry

mgmt wrote: »

Yes. Untill they're is scientific independence in the IPCC, i.e. no political interference, I do not trust one word from them.

The IPCC does not conduct scientific research.

mgmt wrote: »

Where is the data for the period before 1870?? You know before 'AGW'. Does it follow the same upward trend?? The graph is pretty meaningless otherwise.

So now you’re saying sea levels are rising, but it doesn’t matter because we don’t have reliable data prior to 1870? Hmm, once again, I’m happy enough for scientists to continue to investigate the available data and find an explanation for our rising sea levels. You, on the other hand, seem prepared to dismiss all evidence of global warming because scientists have a limited data set to work with. In your opinion, at what point in the future will scientists have a sufficiently large amount of data from which to extract reliable conclusions?

mgmt

djpbarry wrote: »

The IPCC does not conduct scientific research.
So now you’re saying sea levels are rising, but it doesn’t matter because we don’t have reliable data prior to 1870?

The IPCC, which is headed up by a railroad engineer, has been given the authority to collect and analyse research conducted on climate change. Yet the majority of the members of the IPCC are not climate scientists but political appointees. They decide what goes into the the IPCC report which in turn sets the political agenda.

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ipcc-80-percent-of-its-members-where-not-climate-scientists/

Hmm, once again, I’m happy enough for scientists to continue to investigate the available data and find an explanation for our rising sea levels. You, on the other hand, seem prepared to dismiss all evidence of global warming because scientists have a limited data set to work with. In your opinion, at what point in the future will scientists have a sufficiently large amount of data from which to extract reliable conclusions?

I am happy with scientists continuing their work. I am unhappy about NGOs jumping on the bandwagon and using this agenda to further their whorped version of society. For example Mary Robinson jumping on the bandwagon and demanding 'Climate Justice' (socialism).

Macha

mgmt wrote: »

I am happy with scientists continuing their work. I am unhappy about NGOs jumping on the bandwagon and using this agenda to further their whorped version of society. For example Mary Robinson jumping on the bandwagon and demanding 'Climate Justice' (socialism).

Socialism? You mean recognising the fact that the populations that are/will suffer the most are those that are closest to the land and have the narrowest margins for error.

Farming communities across Africa and South America are reporting that the rains are coming at the wrong times, that they don't know when to plant their crops. These are communities that already suffer desperate poverty and hunger at the best of times. Recognising this is now equal to socialism? I'm speechless..

djpbarry

mgmt wrote: »

The IPCC, which is headed up by a railroad engineer, has been given the authority to collect and analyse research conducted on climate change. Yet the majority of the members of the IPCC are not climate scientists but political appointees. They decide what goes into the the IPCC report which in turn sets the political agenda.

“They” do not decide alone in isolation, but anyway, given that the name of the organisation is the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change, I think your desire to see an absence of political “interference” is likely to go unfulfilled. And with regard to the link you provided, what exactly constitutes a “member” of the IPCC?

Anyways, this is all somewhat beside the point. It is entirely possible to be completely opposed to the existence of an organisation such as the IPCC, yet still accept the anthropogenic global warming theory.

mgmt wrote: »

I am happy with scientists continuing their work.

But you dismiss their results when you don’t like what you see and accuse those who accept such results of being “capitalism-haters”?

bonkey

mgmt wrote: »

How convenient, ignore the thousands of years of rising and falling temperatures and just focus on 60 years of warming.




http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.txt

Where's the 3.28mm rise??

Is it just me, or did you first criticise the use of 60 years instead of thousands....and then provide a graph covering a four month period to argue there is no long term trend?

Where is the data for the period before 1870??

Its not on the graph you provided...that's for sure.

Oscardela

djpbarry wrote: »

It is entirely possible to be completely opposed to the existence of an organisation such as the IPCC, yet still accept the anthropogenic global warming theory.

Science isn't about accepting or rejecting a theory, but about continual and rigorous testing.

If someone unquestioningly accepts the theory, then by definition they are not unbiased.

djpbarry

Oscardela wrote: »

Science isn't about accepting or rejecting a theory, but about continual and rigorous testing.

Is it? Is that why we have all these research groups around the world "rigorously testing" the theory of gravity?

Virtually every scientific experiment is premised with a set of assumptions - if every scientist sought to "re-prove" everything from first principles, thus continuously "re-inventing the wheel", scientific advancement would proceed at a painfully slow pace.

Oscardela wrote: »

If someone unquestioningly accepts the theory, then by definition they are not unbiased.

I never said a theory should be accepted without question. However, there comes a point when a theory is accepted beyond reasonable doubt based on the weight of evidence to support it.

Oscardela

djpbarry wrote: »

...there comes a point when a theory is accepted beyond reasonable doubt based on the weight of evidence to support it.

The difference between any scientific claims for gravity and scientific claims for global warming should be apparant. Gravity is easily demonstrable now, global warming is not demonstrable now.

It is important to explain why the example you have chosen is different;

Gravity, as a phenemonen, is here now and it's easy to demonstrate. Global warming is a claim about what might happen in the future, and is only able to be demonstrated (or not) when we reach that time in the future.

The science behind gravity is constantly being worked on and reassessed and refined to try to explain how and why gravity works. Even if those working on gravity still end up withthe same conclusions as those who worked on gravity before them, science never stops and keeps working and reworking to try to get better and more accurate answers.


Global warming is a theory about what might happen in the future. Unusually for science, those who claim they know what is going to happen in the future seem to have no doubts about it at all. Their views are based on computer predictions which are programmed on the assumption that, as CO2 rises, so temperatures must inexorably follow.

Firstly, that assumption, as CO2 rises, so temperatures must inexorably follow,is just that, an assumption.

Then they input higher levels of CO2 into the computres which they have programmed that, if they input higher levels of CO2 then the computer must report higher temperatures and, surprise surprise, the computers tell us that temperatures in the future will be warmer. Then they herald this as "proof" that temperatures in the future will rise if CO2 levels rise. Thats hardly scientific.

David Viner of the UK's CLimate Research Unit famously predicted, in 2000, “within a few years winter snowfall will be a very rare and exciting event”. Why did he get it so wrong? We know the levels of CO2 have rised over the last ten years, so why are we experiencing such increadibly cold winters? Why have the temperatures not risen and why is snow not a "rare and exciting event" as was claimed ten years ago?

In any case, even if the 'climate' (lets rememebr there is not one climate but many climates across the world) is warming slightly, why is that necessarily a bad thing?

Grapes have been grown at Hadrtian's wall before now and the world survived, Greenland grew wheat and barley over 1000 years ago ( indicating the temperatures there were very much higher) and the world survived, and even wooly mammoths have been found under the permafrost in Russia, indicating that there, too, the climate was much warmer in the past than it is now, and the world survived perfectly well.

Those climatologists who still seem to want to cause alarm and panic by their (increasingly unbelievable) utterances never talk about the beneficial effects of a slightly warmer "climate".

Science about predicting the future is just that, predicting. As opposed to science about gravity which is not predicting, but the science is an attempt at explaining why gravity is there, and which is easy to demonstrate now.

djpbarry

Oscardela wrote: »

Gravity, as a phenemonen, is here now and it's easy to demonstrate.

Is it? According to general relativity, gravitational force is an attribute of curved spacetime – how exactly do you go about demonstrating such?

Oscardela wrote: »

Global warming is a claim about what might happen in the future...

No, it is not. Global Warming essentially states that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are increasing in concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere (an observable fact), increasing the planet’s heat capacity and causing a concurrent increase in the mean global temperature (an observable fact). Past observations will not change in the future.

Oscardela wrote: »

The science behind gravity is constantly being worked on and reassessed and refined to try to explain how and why gravity works.

I doubt there are too many scientists in the world, beyond theoretical physicists, who are occupied with the theory of gravity.

Oscardela wrote: »

Unusually for science, those who claim they know what is going to happen in the future seem to have no doubts about it at all.

Really? So climate forecasts do not have associated uncertainties?

Oscardela wrote: »

Their views are based on computer predictions which are programmed on the assumption that, as CO2 rises, so temperatures must inexorably follow.

That simple is it? Could you give an example of one such computer model?

Oscardela wrote: »

Firstly, that assumption, as CO2 rises, so temperatures must inexorably follow,is just that, an assumption.

I think a more accurate description of this “assumption” would be that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Oscardela wrote: »

Then they input higher levels of CO2 into the computres which they have programmed that, if they input higher levels of CO2 then the computer must report higher temperatures and, surprise surprise, the computers tell us that temperatures in the future will be warmer. Then they herald this as "proof" that temperatures in the future will rise if CO2 levels rise.

Again, which specific computer model are you referring to?

Oscardela wrote: »

David Viner of the UK's CLimate Research Unit famously predicted, in 2000, “within a few years winter snowfall will be a very rare and exciting event”. Why did he get it so wrong?

I don’t know – I have no idea who David Viner is.

Oscardela wrote: »

We know the levels of CO2 have rised over the last ten years, so why are we experiencing such increadibly cold winters?

I don’t know. What I do know is that, despite such cold winters in our locality, the last few years are, globally, among the warmest on record.

Oscardela wrote: »

Grapes have been grown at Hadrtian's wall before now and the world survived, Greenland grew wheat and barley over 1000 years ago ( indicating the temperatures there were very much higher) and the world survived, and even wooly mammoths have been found under the permafrost in Russia, indicating that there, too, the climate was much warmer in the past than it is now, and the world survived perfectly well.

Ignoring for a moment that none of this tells us anything about the mean global temperature in the past with any degree of certainty (relative to direct measurement), how exactly does it counter the evidence outlined above? So what if it was warmer or colder in the past – it makes little difference to current observations.

Oscardela wrote: »

Science about predicting the future is just that, predicting. As opposed to science about gravity which is not predicting...

So “predicting” the trajectory of a satellite, for example, does not rely on underlying assumptions with regard to gravitational forces?

Oscardela

djpbarry wrote: »

Is it? According to general relativity, gravitational force is an attribute of curved spacetime – how exactly do you go about demonstrating such?
No, it is not. Global Warming essentially states that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are increasing in concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere (an observable fact), increasing the planet’s heat capacity and causing a concurrent increase in the mean global temperature (an observable fact). Past observations will not change in the future.
I doubt there are too many scientists in the world, beyond theoretical physicists, who are occupied with the theory of gravity.
Really? So climate forecasts do not have associated uncertainties?
That simple is it? Could you give an example of one such computer model?
I think a more accurate description of this “assumption” would be that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Is that a reasonable assumption?
Again, which specific computer model are you referring to?
I don’t know – I have no idea who David Viner is.
I don’t know. What I do know is that, despite such cold winters in our locality, the last few years are, globally, among the warmest on record.
Ignoring for a moment that none of this tells us anything about the mean global temperature in the past with any degree of certainty (relative to direct measurement), how exactly does it counter the evidence outlined above? So what if it was warmer or colder in the past – it makes little difference to current observations.
So “predicting” the trajectory of a satellite, for example, does not rely on underlying assumptions with regard to gravitational forces?

I am not really sure how to answer your post. While it's tempting to go through it point by point, that seems to only act to divert away from the discussion.

For example, you ask which computer models, and the answer is, obviously, all of then which make the assumption that increased CO2 will cause the world to get warmer. Surely that obvious.

It seems, from the thrust of your post, that you believe (a)the world is getting warmer, and (b)that that warming is due to mankind and (c) we should stop it becasue thats not a good thing.

For me, science is not about belief, but about continual and rigorous testing. Furthermore, I find it hard to take seriously the catastrophic prophesies of some who are driving the AGW agenda, as the fact that the world has bene considerably warmer in the past, and it seems to have got by just fine, appears to contradict their predictions of catastrophe.

As has been said in another thread, "The entire case for man-made global warming alarmism rests on computer models (predictions, in other words), which have been demonstrated to be hopelessly, endlessly wrong. (That is why alarmists are so keen to differentiate between short-term and long-range predictions: it takes fifty years to test conclusively a glib stab-in-the-dark about 2060.) The fact is that the alarmists can't even get the past right (Hockey-stick, anyone?), or read current temperatures accurately - never mind give us a realistic forecast. Given their disastrous track-record, why should we be expected to take them seriously, let alone prop them up with our tax dollars?

The evidence is running solidly against man-made global warming. The alarmists have implicity conceded that fact, by re-naming their scare from "global warming", to "climate disruption". In effect, as each new climatic event occurs, taking the climate "scientists" completely by surprise and showing up the inadequacy of their models, they claim that their very inability to predict the course of the winter is proof of their shroud-waving claims."

djpbarry

Oscardela wrote: »

I am not really sure how to answer your post. While it's tempting to go through it point by point, that seems to only act to divert away from the discussion.

Convenient that. Why don’t you let the moderators worry about what is on- or off-topic and you focus on addressing the points that have been raised.

Oscardela wrote: »

For example, you ask which computer models, and the answer is, obviously, all of then which make the assumption that increased CO2 will cause the world to get warmer. Surely that obvious.

No, sorry, it’s not at all obvious. You see, you’re casting an opinion as fact, so I’d like to see some evidence to support your opinion, if you don’t mind. So, where are these ridiculously simplistic computer models that you are referring to and where are the climate forecasts produced by said models?

Oscardela wrote: »

It seems, from the thrust of your post, that you believe (a)the world is getting warmer, and (b)that that warming is due to mankind and (c) we should stop it becasue thats not a good thing.

Three from three.

Oscardela wrote: »

For me, science is not about belief, but about continual and rigorous testing. Furthermore, I find it hard to take seriously the catastrophic prophesies of some who are driving the AGW agenda, as the fact that the world has bene considerably warmer in the past, and it seems to have got by just fine, appears to contradict their predictions of catastrophe.

Once again, whether the planet has been warmer or cooler in the past (and it undoubtedly has been) kind of misses the point. Modern civilisation was not around during these periods in the past, so whether or not it was warmer or colder in the past is somewhat irrelevant – how mankind will cope with future climate changes is the question. The planet will still be here – that much is not in dispute.

Oscardela wrote: »

As has been said in another thread, "The entire case for man-made global warming alarmism rests on computer models...

I’m guessing this was “said in another thread” by you? I’ve already pointed out that this is wholly incorrect – the case for man-made global warming is based on three observations:

1. The global mean temperature has been increasing for several decades.
2. The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing for several decades.
3. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
4. Mankind is responsible for said increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

All of the above are verifiable and require no predictions on future climactic behaviour.

Oscardela wrote: »

... (predictions, in other words), which have been demonstrated to be hopelessly, endlessly wrong.

Have they indeed? Care to provide some examples of such “hopelessly, endlessly wrong” “predictions”?

Oscardela wrote: »

The fact is that the alarmists can't even get the past right (Hockey-stick, anyone?)...

Hold up – weren’t you just citing examples of historic observations as evidence of past climactic variation? Are you now dismissing your own evidence?

Oscardela wrote: »

...or read current temperatures accurately...

The global mean temperature record(s) is (are) inaccurate? Really?

Oscardela wrote: »

The evidence is running solidly against man-made global warming.

Evidence is something that has been conspicuous by its absence from your posts.

Oscardela wrote: »

The alarmists have implicity conceded that fact, by re-naming their scare from "global warming", to "climate disruption".

As has been pointed out countless times on this forum in the past, the term “climate change” (or some variant thereof) has been in popular use for decades. I cite the example of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established back in 1988.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

the case for man-made global warming is based on three observations:

1. The global mean temperature has been increasing for several decades.
2. The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing for several decades.
3. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
4. Mankind is responsible for said increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

All of the above are verifiable and require no predictions on future climactic behaviour.
.

havent been around these parts in a while... i love the new use of Climate Change DJ.. what happened to using Global warming????

to the above...
1. I would agree, the temp has been rising for last few decades.. that doesnt prove anything except temp has been getting hotter

2. Concentrations of CO2 have only been rising for last few decades... have u proof of this?? I believe this is completley incorrect, ice core samples of teh last 80,000 years shows CO2 levels going up and down..
also

Since about 1750 human activity has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Measured atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are currently 100 ppmv higher than pre-industrial levels.[18] Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity,[19] but over periods longer than a few years natural sources are closely balanced by natural sinks, mainly photosynthesis of carbon compounds by plants and marine plankton. As a result of this balance, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide remained between 260 and 280 parts per million for the 10,000 years between the end of the last glacial maximum and the start of the industrial era

3. Co2 is a green house gas

4. mankind have been responsible for an increase in C02... but that is only supports your theroy if C02 is responsible for global warming......

Daddysim

djpbarry wrote: »

Evidence is something that has been conspicuous by its absence from your posts.

As someone who is new here, I'd have thought the fact that we are emerging, temporarily perhaps, from weeks of the coldest weather since records began – with temperatures lower than since records began right round the northern hemisphere, from the US and Europe to China and Mongolia, it would be perverse to see how this is evidence of global warming.

We'll all understand how so many ordinary people find it hard to believe that the world is getting warmer and warmer, with snow disasters right across the northern hemisphere lasting for weeks, and temperature which, we are told, are the coldest since records began, lasting weeks and weeks.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

havent been around these parts in a while... i love the new use of Climate Change DJ.. what happened to using Global warming????

It’s right there in the text you just quoted.

robtri wrote: »

1. I would agree, the temp has been rising for last few decades.. that doesnt prove anything except temp has been getting hotter

I never said it proved anything, I merely stated it was an observation.

robtri wrote: »

2. Concentrations of CO2 have only been rising for last few decades...

I didn’t say it had only been rising for the last few decades – it has probably been rising since the industrial revolution. However, I specify the last few decades as direct measurements only commenced in the 50’s.

robtri wrote: »

4. mankind have been responsible for an increase in C02... but that is only supports your theroy if C02 is responsible for global warming......

Once again, I am merely stating that it is an observation.

djpbarry

Daddysim wrote: »

As someone who is new here, I'd have thought the fact that we are emerging, temporarily perhaps, from weeks of the coldest weather since records began – with temperatures lower than since records began right round the northern hemisphere, from the US and Europe to China and Mongolia, it would be perverse to see how this is evidence of global warming.

Who suggested that it was?

Daddysim wrote: »

We'll all understand how so many ordinary people find it hard to believe that the world is getting warmer and warmer, with snow disasters right across the northern hemisphere lasting for weeks, and temperature which, we are told, are the coldest since records began, lasting weeks and weeks.

How does the average global temperature at the present time compare with records?

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s right there in the text you just quoted.
I never said it proved anything, I merely stated it was an observation.
I didn’t say it had only been rising for the last few decades – it has probably been rising since the industrial revolution. However, I specify the last few decades as direct measurements only commenced in the 50’s.
Once again, I am merely stating that it is an observation.

so youa re basing your observations of C02 increases on measurements starting in the 50s and say in the last few decades there has been a rise??? doesnt seem to be a fair observation.....

so based on these couple of observations, Global warming is man made???

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

so youa re basing your observations of C02 increases on measurements starting in the 50s and say in the last few decades there has been a rise??? doesnt seem to be a fair observation.....

I don’t know what you mean by a “fair observation”, but as I said, continuous observation of carbon dioxide concentration did not begin until the late 50’s. That’s obviously not to say that atmospheric CO2 levels are unknown prior to this point, but continuous monitoring of a variable allows accurate quantification of rates of change.

robtri wrote: »

so based on these couple of observations, Global warming is man made???

Not exactly. I listed those observations in response to a poster who claimed that the entire AGW theory was based on nothing but computer models – I was merely pointing out that this was not the case. However, I would say that, if one accepts the above observations, man-made global warming has to be accepted as a reasonable possibility, at the very least.

Daddysim

djpbarry wrote: »

Who suggested that it was?
How does the average global temperature at the present time compare with records?

No one suggested it was, as far as i am aware. Why do you ask?

With temperatures reaching record lows in Europe (often by being more than an incredible -20°C lower than average) and with similar record lows right across the northern hemisphere, it's hard to imagine that anyone is going to claim that the average temperature for the world in the month of December was higher than previous Decembers.

The claim that the world is getting warmer simply is not the experience of ordinary people, whether that is in northern Europe (where their experience is very definitely that it is getting colder), or elsewhere. This year I travelled to Africa (in South Africa the claim to be having a poor summer with temperatures rarely making 30°) and to India where no one notices much difference.

And so, like many, i wonder just where is the temperature increasing all the time?

And then I wonder where is it increasing to such an enormous extent that it is able to counterbalance the freezing we have seen right across the northern hemisphere, and actually means the average is still increasing. (That means somewhere the average temperature should be many degrees higher to counterbalance the -20° or so seen across Europe and the northern hemisphere).

I understand that increased C02 in the atmosphere can be demonstrated to trap heat, insofar as it acts as an insulator, and prevent some heat leaving the earth.

One thing I have never understood is how it also, presumably, acts as an insulator preventing the suns rays getting to us, which should obviously mean less heat from the sun getting to us. Which in turn should counterbalance in some way they greenhouse effect. Could it be that they both counterbalance each other exactly, or one has more effect that the other?

djpbarry

Daddysim wrote: »

And so, like many, i wonder just where is the temperature increasing all the time?

This video might help explain things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc

It illustrates that while record low temperatures are being recorded across Eurasia in particular, record highs are being recorded elsewhere, such as in the Arctic.

Daddysim wrote: »

I understand that increased C02 in the atmosphere can be demonstrated to trap heat, insofar as it acts as an insulator, and prevent some heat leaving the earth.

One thing I have never understood is how it also, presumably, acts as an insulator preventing the suns rays getting to us...

No, CO2 doesn't block visible light, but it does absorb (and emit) infra-red radiation. The Earth, having being warmed by the sun's rays, radiates energy in the infra-red band, which is "trapped" by greenhouse gases.