'Bundle Up, It's Global Warming'

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

Dude, your argument is that your back yard getting colder means the entire planet is getting colder. Your back yard != the entire planet.

I think you need a strong argument yourself before calling other people's arguments weak. And if you really want to get into it, find an argument that has no answer in here.

Ok Sparks, I'll spell it out for you and the other chap...I planted a lawn in the last week in april with an 8 to 16 day germination time (germination is the time it takes for seed to start growing) :rolleyes:..for almost the whole perod of may we had a cold dry wind from the north to north west that was both very cold and dry whict kept ground temp low preventing proper germination ...
as the two of you are on the east coast you might not have got this wind
If you two want to localise it well from where i am living this summer was nothing to write home about, definately '06 was warmer...
try working out doors for a living and you might get a proper feel for the weather instead of a climate controlled office
weather can be very localised as any one who expieriences it can tell you
one foot of snow in one area 200 miles down the road hard frost
Just to clarify where I stand on this whole GW debate, what the climate is going through is all part of a natural cycle mankind influence on it is minimal...( not talking about waste matter dumping and polutants )

sharper

4gun wrote: »

Just to clarify where I stand on this whole GW debate, what the climate is going through is all part of a natural cycle mankind influence on it is minimal...( not talking about waste matter dumping and polutants )

You just spent post after post claiming it's not really any warmer than it used to be (using your personal experience, extrapolated globally) and now you're saying the change you don't accept is happening is explained by natural cycles.

Is it getting warmer or is it a natural cycle? If it is getting warmer and it's a natural cycle specifically which mechanism are you saying is providing the energy to make the planet hotter?

4gun

sharper wrote: »

You just spent post after post claiming it's not really any warmer than it used to be (using your personal experience, extrapolated globally) and now you're saying the change you don't accept is happening is explained by natural cycles.

Is it getting warmer or is it a natural cycle? If it is getting warmer and it's a natural cycle specifically which mechanism are you saying is providing the energy to make the planet hotter?

wrong again ..my origional post said that was in response to the suggestion that '10 was one of the hottest on record going by average temperatures. I did say that while we had plenty of sunshine there was previling wind form the north that kept temperatures cool...if you live in an urban area this wind might not have been as obvious to those of us living in a rural area..we had a slow growth in the early summer The first crop of silage was not cut down my way untill june when usually it is cut in mid may..
also I never stated that i do not believe that that the climate is in flux I just dont believe that it is all manmade
if its all about carbon and carbon emissions and our leaders are so concerned... where are the large scale tree planting sceames.. not commercial driven caoilte plantations.. why is low emission technology not subsidised...hybrid cars tend to be slightly more expensive that their non-hybrid counteparts with slightly cheaper road tax
how do they reduce emissions ... oh yeah a carbon tax, a bit like putting up the excise duty on cigarettes..
I think I will continue to use my own personal expierience to formulate my own opionins and for now hot is hot, cold is cold
somebody else telling me otherwise, well ...from where they are standing it might be different

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

Ok Sparks, I'll spell it out for you and the other chap..

4gun, you're talking about local weather, which is not the same thing as global climate. Hell, only last week we had at least one day when you had Kerry and Donegal 20 degrees apart in temperature, and Casement ten degrees warmer than three or four miles down the road from it. Individual local readings won't give you the overall picture.

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

if ... our leaders are so concerned...

Whoa there a moment. You're looking to the Irish government to tell if climate change is a real issue or not? The Irish government? FFS 4gun, if it doesn't line their pockets FF want no part of it and the Irish GP are about as incompetent as you can get. That's why they were always considered an anti-FF vote; because nobody really thought that anyone would be stupid enough to put them in charge of anything more important than the remote control for the telly! You can't look to that lot to tell whether or not a scientific theory is correct!

coffeenuts

if global warming is real so is the tooth fairy, santa claus, you see where this is goin.

sharper

4gun wrote: »

wrong again ..my origional post said that was in response to the suggestion that '10 was one of the hottest on record going by average temperatures. I did say that while we had plenty of sunshine there was previling wind form the north that kept temperatures cool...if you live in an urban area this wind might not have been as obvious to those of us living in a rural area..we had a slow growth in the early summer The first crop of silage was not cut down my way untill june when usually it is cut in mid may..

i.e. this is the part where you say the global climate can't be getting hotter because of <local observation X>

also I never stated that i do not believe that that the climate is in flux I just dont believe that it is all manmade

i.e. this is the part where you claim that the change whose existence you just tried to refute is caused by unnamed natural processes.

if its all about carbon and carbon emissions and our leaders are so concerned... where are the large scale tree planting sceames.. not commercial driven caoilte plantations.. why is low emission technology not subsidised...hybrid cars tend to be slightly more expensive that their non-hybrid counteparts with slightly cheaper road tax
how do they reduce emissions ... oh yeah a carbon tax, a bit like putting up the excise duty on cigarettes..

And in 2007 you might have said "If the property market is going to crash and the financial system is going to come apart why aren't the government..."

I think I will continue to use my own personal expierience to formulate my own opionins and for now hot is hot, cold is cold
somebody else telling me otherwise, well ...from where they are standing it might be different

The subjective and inarguable nature of personal experience is why facts are used in such discussion. You cannot refute facts concerning global trends with local anecdotes, or rather you can try but it just looks silly.

4gun

I'll just post some links that I found recently, you can read them if you like
we all take our own views of the world around us and each of us will try to find evidence to support them
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8211948/Its-the-hottest-year-on-record-as-long-as-you-dont-take-its-temperature.html

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=1

drdeadlift

Didnt nui galway find evidence to suggest the last iceage took just 6 years to kick in.

sharper

4gun wrote: »

we all take our own views of the world around us and each of us will try to find evidence to support them

Not all "views" are equal. Some are supportable by facts and some aren't.

Taking the booker piece when you compare the various temperature records properly they line up very closely, in direct contradiction to what's asserted there

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/



What you're doing is forming your conclusion first and then presenting anyone saying the same thing as supporting that conclusion. What you actually have to do is look at the data first and see what reasonable conclusions can be drawn from it. There is simply no way to draw the conclusion "The planet isn't warming" from the data so you're left with guys like Christopher Booker who rails against the theory of evolution and thinks asbestos is as harmless as talcum powder.

If you want to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of evidence then go for it.

thetonynator

drdeadlift wrote: »

Didnt nui galway find evidence to suggest the last iceage took just 6 years to kick in.

Ice ages don't have summers though . . we do . .(of sorts . .:P)

4gun

sharper wrote: »

Not all "views" are equal. Some are supportable by facts and some aren't.

Taking the booker piece when you compare the various temperature records properly they line up very closely, in direct contradiction to what's asserted there

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/



What you're doing is forming your conclusion first and then presenting anyone saying the same thing as supporting that conclusion. What you actually have to do is look at the data first and see what reasonable conclusions can be drawn from it. There is simply no way to draw the conclusion "The planet isn't warming" from the data so you're left with guys like Christopher Booker who rails against the theory of evolution and thinks asbestos is as harmless as talcum powder.

If you want to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of evidence then go for it.

and i'm entitled to it

tell me somthing ..why has the official terminology gone from Global Warming to Climate Change..
looked a graph a while ago that looked very similar to that one but it was for the urban heat effect

evolution has not been proven conclusively other wise it would no longer be "theory" some points can be taken as fact but not all.. but thats for different forum

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

4gun, you're talking about local weather, which is not the same thing as global climate. Hell, only last week we had at least one day when you had Kerry and Donegal 20 degrees apart in temperature, and Casement ten degrees warmer than three or four miles down the road from it. Individual local readings won't give you the overall picture.

maybe not but my mother in law lives in Levin N zealand and so far their summer has been all that good either .. maybe its just us
just because we had a bit of a heat wave towards the latter part of it doesn't make it the hottest on record

Sponge Bob

drdeadlift wrote: »

Didnt nui galway find evidence to suggest the last iceage took just 6 years to kick in.

That was an exceptional situation, one which will not be repeated in our lifetimes. Read about Lake Agassiz...which made cack of the Gulf Stream and caused the last cooling of the last ice age known as the Younger Dryas period.

sharper

4gun wrote: »

looked a graph a while ago that looked very similar to that one but it was for the urban heat effect

Oh ok so you'll ignore the fact that the link you gave is completely and utterly wrong and now you'll go with sort of remembering a similar looking graph relating to the urban heat effect.

Two of the datasets in that graph are from satellites, how many urban heat islands are there up there?

evolution has not been proven conclusively other wise it would no longer be "theory" some points can be taken as fact but not all.. but thats for different forum

Theories always remain theories, you're simply displaying your own ignorance of how science works and of yet another domain of knowledge. I guess you're a fan of Booker's evolution rants after all.

4gun

talk about the bigger picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png






[IMG][/img]

4gun

sharper wrote: »

Oh ok so you'll ignore the fact that the link you gave is completely and utterly wrong and now you'll go with sort of remembering a similar looking graph relating to the urban heat effect.

Two of the datasets in that graph are from satellites, how many urban heat islands are there up there?



Theories always remain theories, you're simply displaying your own ignorance of how science works and of yet another domain of knowledge. I guess you're a fan of Booker's evolution rants after all.

so because I dont believe what you believe in I'm ignorant..and I also know how science works it is based on proven facts and not theoretical hypothesis...when global warming caused by man made carbon emmisions is proven beyond all doubt then i'll buy a pint and tell you how great you are

sharper

Another post another completely random point ignoring all the previous arguments.

4gun wrote: »

talk about the bigger picture

While you were looking at the bigger picture did you notice the position of 2004 on it? 2010 was hotter again. How does "It is now hotter than any point in the last 12,000 years" help your argument?

sharper

4gun wrote: »

so because I dont believe what you believe in I'm ignorant..

You've demonstrated a lack of knowledge of both science and climate.

and I also know how science works

You think evolution "has not been proven" and that scientific theories graduate to become something else after being proven. This is not true

it is based on proven facts and theoretical hypothesis...when global warming caused by man made carbon emmisions is proven beyond all doubt then i'll buy a pint and tell you how great you are

You can't even argue your point without contradicting yourself every other sentence, I don't think you're a reliable judge of what has been "proven beyond all doubt"

sh1tstirrer

Would you two drama queens ever kiss and make up.

sharper

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

Would you two drama queens ever kiss and make up.

I'm not here to indulge your interest in men kissing.

4gun

sharper wrote: »

Another post another completely random point ignoring all the previous arguments.



While you were looking at the bigger picture did you notice the position of 2004 on it? 2010 was hotter again. How does "It is now hotter than any point in the last 12,000 years" help your argument?

Its warmer that the average according to three sources on the graph..that the world has been warmer at other point in its long history ... this is what the graph is showing, you obviously can't read them

4gun

sharper wrote: »

You've demonstrated a lack of knowledge of both science and climate.

and I'm to take it your a senior authority

You think evolution "has not been proven" and that scientific theories graduate to become something else after being proven. This is not true

where is the missing link then ...is it you

You can't even argue your point without contradicting yourself every other sentence, I don't think you're a reliable judge of what has been "proven beyond all doubt"

so who is....
do you actually think at all ? :rolleyes:

thetonynator

sharper wrote: »

I'm not here to indulge your interest in men kissing.

Seriously, the global warming/climate change debate has been done here many times before, and neither of ye are adding to it. And the poster above has no way of knowing whether ye are male or female . . .

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

tell me somthing ..why has the official terminology gone from Global Warming to Climate Change

The actual answer? Because Frank Luntz's focus groups found that "Climate Change" was thought of as a more positive term than "Global Warming" (Frank Luntz is a political advisor to the US Republican party). Which term is used has been well correlated with the political alignment of the media source and the political alignment of the person they're talking about.

evolution has not been proven conclusively other wise it would no longer be "theory"

I think perhaps you don't understand what the phrase "scientific theory" means 4gun. It does not mean the same thing as "lads, I have this idea I just dreamt up as to how this stuff works".

sharper

4gun wrote: »

Its warmer that the average according to three sources on the graph..that the world has been warmer at other point in its long history ... this is what the graph is showing, you obviously can't read them

The graph you posted includes various proxies, you can't just pick the ones showing the highest temperatures (and even then few of the proxies show any higher value than 2004) unless you're also prepared to accept 2004 is much warmer than many of the other proxies.

sharper

thetonynator wrote: »

Seriously, the global warming/climate change debate has been done here many times before, and neither of ye are adding to it. And the poster above has no way of knowing whether ye are male or female . . .

Is there something I'm missing? Is the charter of this forum for threads to always be of personal interest to you? If you don't want to read the thread...don't read the thread!

thetonynator

sharper wrote: »

Is there something I'm missing? Is the charter of this forum for threads to always be of personal interest to you? If you don't want to read the thread...don't read the thread!

Not my point at all actually. Merely pointing out that neither of ye has said anything remotely new, and neither of ye is showing the slightest sign of giving in so ye should prob just agree to disagree while secretly both knowing that ye're right. :P just my opinion!!:pac:

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

The actual answer? Because Frank Luntz's focus groups found that "Climate Change" was thought of as a more positive term than "Global Warming" (Frank Luntz is a political advisor to the US Republican party). Which term is used has been well correlated with the political alignment of the media source and the political alignment of the person they're talking about.


so its just political spin



I think perhaps you don't understand what the phrase "scientific theory" means 4gun. It does not mean the same thing as "lads, I have this idea I just dreamt up as to how this stuff works".

yeah,that most scientists have to agree on it but it can be changed if new information is found... this doesn't make it conclusive ? should that happen would it be scientific law? global warming is not an absolute prediction can any of you say with absolute certainty what global temperatures will be in 20 or 30 years time
All I have said in this thread is that I do not believe that global warming is man made that The summer that I expierienced this year was not the hottest,
computer modeling will show us where it will be if trends continue and they're only as good as the information fed into them

wildefalcon

Ladies/Gentleman,

Please, much as I love a good fight, please can you stop it? Agree to disagree, and move on.

If you DO want to fight then go and join the happy bunch on Politics.ie, who love flinging insults and whinging at each other debating the finer details of points with erudite and eloquent gentleness.

Thank you.