'Bundle Up, It's Global Warming'

sharper

redsunset wrote: »

Are you for real?
Like i said earlier your a closed book.

As I said earlier show me the evidence.

Solar activity has been rampant until only recently

Solar TSI measurements say otherwise

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1970/to:2010/plot/pmod/from:1970/to:2010/trend



http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

and we have been in a warm PDO.This tells me you have not properly read the thread.

I have read the thread that doesn't mean I'm convinced by someone graphing ocean cycles to explain climate change (which they don't accept is happening and which contradicts their own position that solar activity is the driver of it)

The PDO index for the last 30 years looks like this

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/to:2010/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/to:2010/trend



You say I'm a "closed book" and yet when I look at the data it contradicts what you're saying but I'm supposed to accept it anyway?

Redsunset

There is no talking to you and the fact that you have a little over a hundred posts in seven and a half years rings alarm bells.Happy new year to you im off to enjoy my Global warming/cooling cycle of life.

Min

I wish man made climate change was partially real, before it was milder and wetter winters.
Instead we have a sun that is heavily medicated on anti-acne tablets and creams and it has left us with colder than normal winters.....but the man made up climate change people want every side of their bread buttered and now claim the cold winter is the result of climate change.
No, it is just the sun too concerned with it's appearance at the moment.

4gun

sharper wrote: »

Sorry I'm not going to argue against your personal incredulity. You're well aware of where the evidence for it exists and there's simply no way I'm going to fall into the trap of personally trying to educate someone hostile to the topic.

The very nature of your question reveals your lack of unfamiliarity with how science works, it doesn't "prove" things. You can't prove that HIV causes AIDS either.

If you want to argue that the planet isn't warming then you need evidence. If you want to argue that the planet is warming (or cooling) and that something is responsible for that you need evidence. If you don't have evidence then all you have is a belief backed up with paranoid conspiracy theories for why everyone doesn't believe what you do.

Your question can be reformulated in all sorts of ways. "Show me the proof the Earth is billions of years old", "Show me the proof the Earth is flat", "Show me the proof France really exists". The answer is the same in all cases, get yourself an education on the topic and come back when you have an informed opinion.

you keep asking people do we know how science works...are you implying that you are a scientist ..people often find it very hard to admit they have been swindled or mislead....;)

sharper

4gun wrote: »

you keep asking people do we know how science works...

They keep saying things that suggests they don't.

are you implying that you are a scientist ..

I'm not and haven't claimed to be.

people often find it very hard to admit they have been swindled or mislead....;)

I'm sure they do but I'm the one showing the evidence that backs what I'm saying. What do other people have? Apparently they need a particular post count before they'll deal with the fact that actual observations flat out contradict what they're saying.

People are throwing around all sorts of accusations of fraud, of everyone (but them) being mislead and claims about how nothing is changing, it's really cooling, the oceans or the sun explain the warming/cooling/nothing happening. What they lack is both a coherent position and evidence.

thetonynator

godwin wrote: »

The earth is 4.5 billion years old weather records are only only 200? years old.
Global warming science is the only science that maintains credibility even though it's based on data which considering the age of the planet only reflects a minute fraction of its weather patterns.

English CET goes back to the 1600's afaik, not sure if there is more data anywhere.

thetonynator

sharper wrote: »

"Show me the proof the Earth is flat",

Hate to be smart and point this out, but the earth isn't flat. :pac:

sharper

thetonynator wrote: »

Hate to be smart and point this out, but the earth isn't flat. :pac:

Ha ha well of course I meant the opposite although people who do think the Earth is flat would likely also say the moon landing was a fake.

4gun

sharper wrote: »

They keep saying things that suggests they don't.


I'm not and haven't claimed to be.

science has been wrong in the past ..only the Pope is infallible (and thats only on matters of doctrine)


I'm sure they do but I'm the one showing the evidence that backs what I'm saying. What do other people have? Apparently they need a particular post count before they'll deal with the fact that actual observations flat out contradict what they're saying.

Redsunset has a whole thread backing up what he is saying,the problem is that what he is saying theree does not fit in with your way of thinking ..there fore it must be wrong ,you keep claiming that the current climate conditions are a direct result of human industrial development over the last couple of centuries..stop heating your house then if you only use oil, dont drive your car, cycle to work ( maybe you do)if this is what you believe

People are throwing around all sorts of accusations of fraud, of everyone (but them) being mislead and claims about how nothing is changing, it's really cooling, the oceans or the sun explain the warming/cooling/nothing happening. What they lack is both a coherent position and evidence.

why is it that when weather forcasts predict sunshine and we get rain people generelly accept that it simply because the weather is very hard to predict...so many variables to consider.
but when global warming is predicted well the it has to absolutely correct....Even Sparks said in an earlier thread that there are no absolutes in science con you not even consider that manmade global warming was predicter in error...

4gun

sharper wrote: »

They keep saying things that suggests they What they lack is both a coherent position and evidence.

more like a lack of funds on part of the anti global warmists side

ciggarette companies funded research into the health benefits of smoking several years ago ..I sure they found positive results to meet their claims too

sharper

You have a bizarre way of replying

science has been wrong in the past

Science only claims to provide mechanisms to provide the best explanations for available data. New data invariably comes along which shows previous explanations were incomplete or wrong. If someone is claiming a current explanation is wrong they need to show either why their explanation explains the same data better or the new data which shows the existing one is incorrect.

Redsunset has a whole thread backing up what he is saying

He could have ten threads and that doesn't change the downward trend for both solar TSI and the PDO index over the last 30 years.

the problem is that what he is saying theree does not fit in with your way of thinking ..there fore it must be wrong

The problem is that when someone says the current scientific explanation for something is wrong I expect them to be able to explain it better than the current scientific explanation can. When I present evidence that contradicts them and they then make a ridiculous point about my postcount and run away I'm not convinced.

you keep claiming that the current climate conditions are a direct result of human industrial development over the last couple of centuries..stop heating your house then if you only use oil, dont drive your car, cycle to work ( maybe you do)if this is what you believe

This isn't an argument. Your firstly assuming I'm advocating that people not do these things and secondly the entire problem is even if I did stop doing these things I'd still experience the effects from climate change caused by other people doing those things.

but when global warming is predicted well the it has to absolutely correct.

Actually I'm the one pointing out that there's no proof in science, you and redsunset are the ones demanding things be proven.

We haven't even dealt with predictions, there isn't even broad agreement among posters here about whether there's anything happening, whether it's warming or whether it's cooling.

you not even consider that manmade global warming was predicter in error...

I absolutely do consider the possibility that it's in error which is why I asked people to demonstrate their contrary claims. I'm not, however, willing to accept that up is down and black is white because someone tells me it is.

When someone tells me that solar activity has been "rampant until only recently" but when I look at solar activity I see 30 years of steady or declining solar activity what am I supposed to do?

Min

No denies there is climate change when it comes to warming or cooling, people disagree whether it is climate change or man made climate change.

The evidence for CO2 is rather weak given the levels of the gas in the past and how when over 5 times higher than at present it didn't ruin the planet.

MiNdGaM3

The thing with the TSI is that even though it's dropped a little recently, it might still at a high enough level to cause warming (if there is any kind of direct relationship to warming).
I tend to think of it as being like heating a pot of water. If you put water at 10C on a hob at 150C the water will begin to warm. But then if after a few minutes, with the water up to 30C, if you turn the hob down to 50C the water will continue to heat up.
Hope that makes sense!

Min wrote: »

No denies there is climate change when it comes to warming or cooling, people disagree whether it is climate change or man made climate change.

The evidence for CO2 is rather weak given the levels of the gas in the past and how when over 5 times higher than at present it didn't ruin the planet.

Plenty of other things that could have negated the extra CO2, such as the placement of the continents, position within the Milankovitch cycles, etc.

sharper

Min wrote: »

The evidence for CO2 is rather weak given the levels of the gas in the past and how when over 5 times higher than at present it didn't ruin the planet.

Nobody is talking about C02 ruining the planet, the planet will do just fine. Particular species like coral and human civilization may not do so well however.

The radiative properties of C02 are known and calculated. If you want to argue that increasing C02 doesn't have the predicted effect you need to show how those calculations are incorrect. Vague assertions about levels being higher in the past not leading to some unspecified disaster won't cut it.

sharper

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

The thing with the TSI is that even though it's dropped a little recently, it might still at a high enough level to cause warming (if there is any kind of direct relationship to warming).
I tend to think of it as being like heating a pot of water. If you put water at 10C on a hob at 150C the water will begin to warm. But then if after a few minutes, with the water up to 30C, if you turn the hob down to 50C the water will continue to heat up.
Hope that makes sense!

That certainly is a possibility, when solar activity changes it takes time for the climate to reach equilibrium with it. We can test that by examining the difference between the energy we're receiving and the energy we're radiating

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-time-lag.html

Hansen 2005 finds that the net radiative imbalance has steadily increased over the 20th century. There is no indication that the climate is heading towards equilibrium - quite the contrary. This is confirmed by satellite measurements of energy flux at the top of the atmosphere

The climate is not heading towards equilibrium. Rather, the radiative imbalance is increasing with the climate steadily receiving more energy than it is radiating back out into space. And this is where the true significance of climate time lag lies. Even if the radiative imbalance were to level off at its current rate of around 0.85W/m2, it would take several decades for the climate to return to radiative equilibrium. Based on this climate lag, Hansen 2005 calculates there is still 0.6°C warming still "in the pipeline".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/This-just-in-the-sun-affects-climate.html

However, the sun has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's. This means that when modern global warming trend began in the 1970's, the correlation between sun and climate broke down. In fact, the long term trend for solar activity is that of cooling. Not only is the sun not contributing to global warming, it has had a slight, long term cooling effect

This break down in correlation is the reason why so much peer reviewed research investigating the link between sun and climate has concluded that the sun is not a major factor in global warming. Ammann 2007, Lockwood 2007, Foukal 2006, Scafetta 2006, Usoskin 2005 and many other papers (here is a more comprehensive list) all find the sun has had a minimal impact on global warming over the past 30 years.

rccaulfield

This threads gone sillier!

4gun wrote: »

why is it that when weather forcasts predict sunshine and we get rain people generelly accept that it simply because the weather is very hard to predict...so many variables to consider.
but when global warming is predicted well the it has to absolutely correct....Even Sparks said in an earlier thread that there are no absolutes in science con you not even consider that manmade global warming was predicter in error...

Wrong again, when there was a baking summer last year did you hear any people who know the evidence about GW say oh thats because of global warming----no! But when we get a freeze, people who read the tabloids(i saw some of your links!) claim whoa its all a scam/ you are all mistaken despite the data despite the reasoned evidence. If any new evidence comes up that claims the climate is warming not by mans pumping co2 into the atmosphere etc but by some natural unknown means then i will accept that because that will be the evidence. Yet you and the likes of you will not accept the current view when the evidence is overwhelming, nuff said.

Min wrote: »

No denies there is climate change when it comes to warming or cooling, people disagree whether it is climate change or man made climate change.

The evidence for CO2 is rather weak given the levels of the gas in the past and how when over 5 times higher than at present it didn't ruin the planet.

What do you mean ruin the planet? Oxygen is a poison to most life on earth especially when the reptiles came out of the sea, what are you saying?

4gun wrote: »

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 )

Thats a massive fail, you've been told over and over its global warming not back garden localised warming.

Min

I said, quote: it didn't ruin the planet.

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant, at just 0.038%. It is not Venus at over 96% CO2 which does have a greenhouse problem...

zenno

sharper wrote: »

The evidence says otherwise. Volcanic eruptions release 1% of what "us little specs" do.



This is a complete non-sequitur, C02 could easily be good for plants and have a real effect on climate.


Ah yes all those scientists and their evidence and what-not, they should be just asking you because you know what's really happening.




All the evidence from satellite measurement and other observations says the arctic ice is at its lowest extent for at least 30 years and probably longer than that. Your idea of "truth" appears to be whatever you make up.



The world is only "cooling" if you ignore every single global temperature record as well as other multiple lines of evidence showing that it's warming. This appears to be more of you just making things up and calling it truth.

you are way out man. research the pattern of ice/snow accumulation in the north and you will see. and don't be a repeater spluttering out the same ole farcical nonsense that you read off the tabloids comon man.

MiNdGaM3

Min wrote: »

I said, quote: it didn't ruin the planet.

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant, at just 0.038%. It is not Venus at over 96% CO2 which does have a greenhouse problem...

How does that make it insignificant?

zenno

sharper wrote: »

You can easily change my views with evidence. Grand assertions of fraud, conspiracy, that the Earth is really cooling, that current climate change (that isn't happening, it's all fraud) is driven by the sun or volcanoes won't change my views.

I note none of the people arguing against man made climate change have provided any evidence of anything nor have they rebutted evidence provided which runs contrary to their arguments. They simply ignore it.

neither have you! where is you're evidence/solid proof huh. yin/yang thats the way everything will always be.

Min

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

How does that make it insignificant?

Are we really meant to believe that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere going from a level of 0.028% to 0.038% is causing problems with the climate?
The normal level over the recent past in terms of the lifetime of the planet has been 0.05% or lower and before that it was over 0.2%.

0.038% is not significant or anything that could be described as being high.

MiNdGaM3

zenno wrote: »

the ice is melting in the north pole LOL i mean comon look at the real evidence in snow layers each winter in the pole actually for the last 20 or more years the icecaps are growing. theres alot of brainwashing rubbish out there but if you research the weather you will see the real truth.

Every source for Arctic ice I've seen have shown a drop in extent since the beginning of the satellite record in 79, with an increase in Antarctic ice.
Can you post a link showing how the sea ice in the northern hemisphere is increasing?

Min wrote: »

Are we really meant to believe that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere going from a level of 0.028% to 0.038% is causing problems with the climate?
The normal level over the recent past in terms of the lifetime of the planet has been 0.05% or lower and before that it was over 0.2%.

0.038% is not significant or anything that could be described as being high.

Do you think ozone is insignificant too? That's only 0.000004% of the atmosphere?

zenno

i'm out of here. as long as there is paper money no longer attributed to gold circulation on this planet then all the scams will come and go but this global-warming scam has made alot of people seriously rich but most people are more interested in eastenders to really care or think about this kind of stuff. zod help us if that is the case. signing out' truth.

Min

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Do you think ozone is insignificant too? That's only 0.000004% of the atmosphere?

O3 is a minor greenhouse gas, it is a pollutant at lower levels and affects agricultural production, while increased CO2 should help increase food production.

sharper

zenno wrote: »

you are way out man. research the pattern of ice/snow accumulation in the north and you will see. and don't be a repeater spluttering out the same ole farcical nonsense that you read off the tabloids comon man.

I don't need to research it, I regularly checkout the arctic ice reports

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


I (again) find myself in a position where someone is telling me something that runs exactly opposite to what the data says.

Min

sharper wrote: »

I don't need to research it, I regularly checkout the arctic ice reports

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


I (again) find myself in a position where someone is telling me something that runs exactly opposite to what the data says.

Arctic sea ice is fine, it doesn't matter if there is less of it. The vikings are said to have flourished because of warmer temperatures and less ice at higher level latitudes.

sharper

Min wrote: »

0.038% is not significant or anything that could be described as being high.

Sorry but the greenhouse properties of C02 don't disappear just because you can't believe a small number can have an impact.

Going by your own argument it shouldn't matter if the levels of C02 changed from 0.038% to 0.008% yet most life would be unable to survive at that level.

sharper

Min wrote: »

Arctic sea ice is fine, it doesn't matter if there is less of it. The vikings are said to have flourished because of warmer temperatures and less ice at higher level latitudes.

Ah! So arctic ice is "fine" regardless of what level it's at.

So on the one hand arctic isn't changing (or maybe it's increasing) but if it's decreasing well that's all ok too.

So long as you heard something about the Vikings that must mean the modern world will be fine as well.

Min

sharper wrote: »

Sorry but the greenhouse properties of C02 don't disappear just because you can't believe a small number can have an impact.

Going by your own argument it shouldn't matter if the levels of C02 changed from 0.038% to 0.008% yet most life would be unable to survive at that level.

The level is nothing out of the ordinary compared to what we know of levels in the past, I believe the research shows 0.05% or lower has been the norm for recent times, though in the period it can go way higher.

If one believes in evolution then when it was at 0.2% it didn't kill our ancestors.

Min

sharper wrote: »

Ah! So arctic ice is "fine" regardless of what level it's at.

So on the one hand arctic isn't changing (or maybe it's increasing) but if it's decreasing well that's all ok too.

So long as you heard something about the Vikings that must mean the modern world will be fine as well.

Yes, there was a time before Panama was formed where there was no such thing as permanent Arctic ice.