"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

_Redzer_

kneemos wrote: »

For something complex fair enough.For something simple I'd be concerned.

Said the one who didn't know what he was talking about when he mentioned CO2 levels of volcanoes..

Hitchens

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

Its like a person who spent a year losing 20kg being unworried when they gain 15kg in a single day, as they have been heavier before. If ignore what you ate during those 24 hours as being a possible cause for the sudden weight gain, you'll be ballooning towards a unhealthy future at an alarming rate.

see here

kneemos

kneemos wrote: »

For something complex fair enough.For something simple I'd be concerned.

Climate change simple! SNMP is simple, global climate and man's interaction with it is a whole new ball game.

The problem is that almost everyone who has an opinion with the exception of the denialists (people who say man have zero impact on the environment) are partially correct.

Climate change will happen, it has happened in the past and is happening right now, the only real unknown is what would the changes have been like without man?

Akrasia

The full report is now available on the IPCC website.

If you don't think climate change is serious, you should read it and see what the consequences of inaction are.

If you think the IPCC is some kind of conspiracy so governments can increase taxes, you probably won't understand any of it but it has some nice colourful graphs.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf

Akrasia

Here's an example of what the report says about the impact of solar cycles on global warming.
Note, since the last report AR4 they have downgraded the impact of solar variation on global warming.

TS.3.5 Radiative Forcing from Natural Drivers of Climate Change
Solar and volcanic forcings are the two dominant natural contributors to global climate change during the
industrial era. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes since 1978 show quasi-periodic
cyclical variation with a period of roughly 11 years. Longer-term forcing is typically estimated by
comparison of solar minima (during which variability is least). This gives a RF change of –0.04 [–0.08 to
0.00] W m–2
between the most recent (2008) minimum and the 1986 minimum. There is some diversity in
the estimated trends of the composites of various satellite data, however. Secular trends of TSI before the
start of satellite observations rely on a number of indirect proxies. The best estimate of RF from TSI changes
over the industrial era is 0.05 [0.00 to 0.10] W m–2
(medium confidence), which includes greater RF up to
around 1980 and then a small downward trend. This RF estimate is substantially smaller than the AR4
estimate due to the addition of the latest solar cycle and inconsistencies in how solar RF was estimated in
earlier IPCC assessments. The recent solar minimum appears to have been unusually low and long-lasting
and several projections indicate lower TSI for the forthcoming decades. However, current abilities to project
solar irradiance are extremely limited so that there is very low confidence concerning future solar forcing.
Nonetheless, there is a high confidence that 21st century solar forcing will be much smaller than the
projected increased forcing due to GHGs. {5.2.1, 8.4; FAQ 5.1}
Changes in solar activity affect the cosmic ray flux impinging upon the Earth’s atmosphere, which has been
hypothesized to affect climate through changes in cloudiness. Cosmic rays enhance aerosol nucleation and
thus may affect cloud condensation nuclei production in the free troposphere, but the effect is too weak to
have any climatic influence during a solar cycle or over the last century (medium evidence, high agreement) .
No robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified.

Filibuster

Akrasia wrote: »

Here's an example of what the report says about the impact of solar cycles on global warming.
Note, since the last report AR4 they have downgraded the impact of solar variation on global warming.

It's the Sun.

IPCC Underestimates the Sun's Role in Climate Change

According to the IPCC 5th assessment report (in prep.) the Sun has not been a major driver of climate change during the post-Little Ice Age slow warming, and particularly not during the last 40 years. This statement requires critical review as the IPCC neglects strong paleo-climatologic evidence for the high sensitivity of the climate system to changes in solar activity. This high climate sensitivity is not alone due to variations in total solar irradiance-related direct solar forcing, but also due to additional, so-called indirect solar forcings. These include solar-related chemical-based UV irradiance-related variations in stratospheric temperatures and galactic cosmic ray-related changes in cloud cover and surface temperatures, as well as ocean oscillations, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation that significant affect the climate. As it is still difficult to quantify the relative contribution of combined direct and indirect solar forcing and of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations to the slow warming of the last 40 years, predictions about future global warming based exclusively on anthropogenic CO2 emission scenarios are premature.

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/n712j5282930180k/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.1260%2f0958-305X.24.3-4.431

Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients

We assert that strong evidence exists to support the reality of a physical Sun–climate connection, as manifest in the multi-decadal co-variations of TSI and EPTG.



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136468261200288X

steddyeddy

Can I ask a question for those who don't accept human accelerated climate change? Do you think that the scientists are making up the data or the the data doesn't show what they say it does?

kneemos

steddyeddy wrote: »

Can I ask a question for those who don't accept human accelerated climate change? Do you think that the scientists are making up the data or the the data doesn't show what they say it does?

Making too much of it.

darkpagandeath

Akrasia wrote: »

Here's an example of what the report says about the impact of solar cycles on global warming.
Note, since the last report AR4 they have downgraded the impact of solar variation on global warming.

I'm gobsmacked .. You know the sun drives the weather systems on earth right ? Taking 1 thing out of context does not prove anything. What about planetary wobble,drift,axis tilt. What about magnetic field fluctuations. Natural ozone depletion and replacement (could list tons more contributors). There are so many factors to take into account just averaging or tweaking your figures in the model to get what you want what does that prove. Statistical models and so on are just averaged basically then put into a model that then give an average. Which all has a % accepted amount of error compounding the flaws in the model there using.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Can I ask a question for those who don't accept human accelerated climate change? Do you think that the scientists are making up the data or the the data doesn't show what they say it does?

Well, here is some of the source data showing just how much additional CO2 that has been added since the records began. As as sceptic, I know that this amount of additional CO2 has to be having an effect, the only unanswered question is how much?


From here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html

this page http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems

***********************************************************
*** Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, ***
*** Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2010 ***
*** ***
*** July 30, 2013 ***
*** ***
*** Source: Tom Boden ***
*** Bob Andres ***
*** Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center ***
*** Oak Ridge National Laboratory ***
*** Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6290 ***
*** USA ***
*** ***
*** Gregg Marland ***
*** Research Institute for Environment, Energy ***
*** and Economics ***
*** Appalachian State University ***
*** Boone, North Carolina 28608-2131 ***
*** USA ***
***********************************************************

All emission estimates are expressed in million metric tons of carbon. To
convert these estimates to units of carbon dioxide (CO2), simply multiply
these estimates by 3.667.

Per capita emission estimates are expressed in metric tons of carbon.
Population estimates were not available to permit calculations of global
per capita estimates before 1950. Please note that annual sums were
tallied before each element (e.g., Gas) was rounded and reported here
so totals may differ slightly from the sum of the elements due to
rounding.

Cement Gas Per
Year Total Gas Liquids Solids Production Flaring Capita

1751 3 0 0 3 0 0
1752 3 0 0 3 0 0
1753 3 0 0 3 0 0
1754 3 0 0 3 0 0
1755 3 0 0 3 0 0
1756 3 0 0 3 0 0
1757 3 0 0 3 0 0
1758 3 0 0 3 0 0
1759 3 0 0 3 0 0
1760 3 0 0 3 0 0
1761 3 0 0 3 0 0
1762 3 0 0 3 0 0
1763 3 0 0 3 0 0
1764 3 0 0 3 0 0
1765 3 0 0 3 0 0
1766 3 0 0 3 0 0
1767 3 0 0 3 0 0
1768 3 0 0 3 0 0
1769 3 0 0 3 0 0
1770 3 0 0 3 0 0
1771 4 0 0 4 0 0
1772 4 0 0 4 0 0
1773 4 0 0 4 0 0
1774 4 0 0 4 0 0
1775 4 0 0 4 0 0
1776 4 0 0 4 0 0
1777 4 0 0 4 0 0
1778 4 0 0 4 0 0
1779 4 0 0 4 0 0
1780 4 0 0 4 0 0
1781 5 0 0 5 0 0
1782 5 0 0 5 0 0
1783 5 0 0 5 0 0
1784 5 0 0 5 0 0
1785 5 0 0 5 0 0
1786 5 0 0 5 0 0
1787 5 0 0 5 0 0
1788 5 0 0 5 0 0
1789 5 0 0 5 0 0
1790 5 0 0 5 0 0
1791 6 0 0 6 0 0
1792 6 0 0 6 0 0
1793 6 0 0 6 0 0
1794 6 0 0 6 0 0
1795 6 0 0 6 0 0
1796 6 0 0 6 0 0
1797 7 0 0 7 0 0
1798 7 0 0 7 0 0
1799 7 0 0 7 0 0
1800 8 0 0 8 0 0
1801 8 0 0 8 0 0
1802 10 0 0 10 0 0
1803 9 0 0 9 0 0
1804 9 0 0 9 0 0
1805 9 0 0 9 0 0
1806 10 0 0 10 0 0
1807 10 0 0 10 0 0
1808 10 0 0 10 0 0
1809 10 0 0 10 0 0
1810 10 0 0 10 0 0
1811 11 0 0 11 0 0
1812 11 0 0 11 0 0
1813 11 0 0 11 0 0
1814 11 0 0 11 0 0
1815 12 0 0 12 0 0
1816 13 0 0 13 0 0
1817 14 0 0 14 0 0
1818 14 0 0 14 0 0
1819 14 0 0 14 0 0
1820 14 0 0 14 0 0
1821 14 0 0 14 0 0
1822 15 0 0 15 0 0
1823 16 0 0 16 0 0
1824 16 0 0 16 0 0
1825 17 0 0 17 0 0
1826 17 0 0 17 0 0
1827 18 0 0 18 0 0
1828 18 0 0 18 0 0
1829 18 0 0 18 0 0
1830 24 0 0 24 0 0
1831 23 0 0 23 0 0
1832 23 0 0 23 0 0
1833 24 0 0 24 0 0
1834 24 0 0 24 0 0
1835 25 0 0 25 0 0
1836 29 0 0 29 0 0
1837 29 0 0 29 0 0
1838 30 0 0 30 0 0
1839 31 0 0 31 0 0
1840 33 0 0 33 0 0
1841 34 0 0 34 0 0
1842 36 0 0 36 0 0
1843 37 0 0 37 0 0
1844 39 0 0 39 0 0
1845 43 0 0 43 0 0
1846 43 0 0 43 0 0
1847 46 0 0 46 0 0
1848 47 0 0 47 0 0
1849 50 0 0 50 0 0
1850 54 0 0 54 0 0
1851 54 0 0 54 0 0
1852 57 0 0 57 0 0
1853 59 0 0 59 0 0
1854 69 0 0 69 0 0
1855 71 0 0 71 0 0
1856 76 0 0 76 0 0
1857 77 0 0 77 0 0
1858 78 0 0 78 0 0
1859 83 0 0 83 0 0
1860 91 0 0 91 0 0
1861 95 0 0 95 0 0
1862 97 0 0 96 0 0
1863 104 0 0 103 0 0
1864 112 0 0 112 0 0
1865 119 0 0 119 0 0
1866 122 0 0 122 0 0
1867 130 0 0 130 0 0
1868 135 0 0 134 0 0
1869 142 0 0 142 0 0
1870 147 0 1 146 0 0
1871 156 0 1 156 0 0
1872 173 0 1 173 0 0
1873 184 0 1 183 0 0
1874 174 0 1 173 0 0
1875 188 0 1 187 0 0
1876 191 0 1 190 0 0
1877 194 0 2 192 0 0
1878 196 0 2 194 0 0
1879 210 0 3 207 0 0
1880 236 0 3 233 0 0
1881 243 0 4 239 0 0
1882 256 0 4 252 0 0
1883 272 0 3 269 0 0
1884 275 0 4 271 0 0
1885 277 1 4 273 0 0
1886 281 2 5 275 0 0
1887 295 3 5 287 0 0
1888 327 5 5 317 0 0
1889 327 3 6 318 0 0
1890 356 3 8 345 0 0
1891 372 2 9 360 0 0
1892 374 2 9 363 0 0
1893 370 2 10 358 0 0
1894 383 2 9 372 0 0
1895 406 2 11 393 0 0
1896 419 2 12 405 0 0
1897 440 2 13 425 0 0
1898 465 2 13 449 0 0
1899 507 3 14 491 0 0
1900 534 3 16 515 0 0
1901 552 4 18 531 0 0
1902 566 4 19 543 0 0
1903 617 4 20 593 0 0
1904 624 4 23 597 0 0
1905 663 5 23 636 0 0
1906 707 5 23 680 0 0
1907 784 5 28 750 0 0
1908 750 5 30 714 0 0
1909 785 6 32 747 0 0
1910 819 7 34 778 0 0
1911 836 7 36 792 0 0
1912 879 8 37 834 0 0
1913 943 8 41 895 0 0
1914 850 8 42 800 0 0
1915 838 9 45 784 0 0
1916 901 10 48 842 0 0
1917 955 11 54 891 0 0
1918 936 10 53 873 0 0
1919 806 10 61 735 0 0
1920 932 11 78 843 0 0
1921 803 10 84 709 0 0
1922 845 11 94 740 0 0
1923 970 14 111 845 0 0
1924 963 16 110 836 0 0
1925 975 17 116 842 0 0
1926 983 19 119 846 0 0
1927 1062 21 136 905 0 0
1928 1065 23 143 890 10 0
1929 1145 28 160 947 10 0
1930 1053 28 152 862 10 0
1931 940 25 147 759 8 0
1932 847 24 141 675 7 0
1933 893 25 154 708 7 0
1934 973 28 162 775 8 0
1935 1027 30 176 811 9 0
1936 1130 34 192 893 11 0
1937 1209 38 219 941 11 0
1938 1142 37 214 880 12 0
1939 1192 38 222 918 13 0
1940 1299 42 229 1017 11 0
1941 1334 42 236 1043 12 0
1942 1342 45 222 1063 11 0
1943 1391 50 239 1092 10 0
1944 1383 54 275 1047 7 0
1945 1160 59 275 820 7 0
1946 1238 61 292 875 10 0
1947 1392 67 322 992 12 0
1948 1469 76 364 1015 14 0
1949 1419 81 362 960 16 0
1950 1630 97 423 1070 18 23 0.64
1951 1767 115 479 1129 20 24 0.69
1952 1795 124 504 1119 22 26 0.68
1953 1841 131 533 1125 24 27 0.69
1954 1865 138 557 1116 27 27 0.69
1955 2042 150 625 1208 30 31 0.74
1956 2177 161 679 1273 32 32 0.77
1957 2270 178 714 1309 34 35 0.79
1958 2330 192 731 1336 36 35 0.80
1959 2454 206 789 1382 40 36 0.83
1960 2569 227 849 1410 43 39 0.85
1961 2580 240 904 1349 45 42 0.84
1962 2686 263 980 1351 49 44 0.86
1963 2833 286 1052 1396 51 47 0.88
1964 2995 316 1137 1435 57 51 0.92
1965 3130 337 1219 1460 59 55 0.94
1966 3288 364 1323 1478 63 60 0.97
1967 3393 392 1423 1448 65 66 0.98
1968 3566 424 1551 1448 70 73 1.01
1969 3780 467 1673 1486 74 80 1.05
1970 4053 493 1839 1556 78 87 1.10
1971 4208 530 1947 1559 84 88 1.12
1972 4376 560 2057 1576 89 94 1.14
1973 4614 588 2241 1581 95 110 1.18
1974 4623 597 2245 1579 96 107 1.16
1975 4596 604 2132 1673 95 92 1.13
1976 4864 630 2314 1710 103 108 1.18
1977 5026 650 2398 1765 108 104 1.19
1978 5087 680 2392 1793 116 106 1.19
1979 5369 721 2544 1887 119 98 1.23
1980 5315 740 2422 1947 120 86 1.20
1981 5152 756 2289 1921 121 64 1.14
1982 5113 740 2196 1992 121 64 1.11
1983 5094 741 2176 1995 125 58 1.09
1984 5280 808 2199 2094 128 51 1.11
1985 5439 837 2186 2237 131 49 1.12
1986 5607 831 2293 2300 137 46 1.14
1987 5752 894 2306 2364 143 44 1.15
1988 5965 937 2412 2414 152 50 1.17
1989 6097 985 2459 2457 156 41 1.17
1990 6127 1019 2492 2419 157 40 1.16
1991 6217 1063 2605 2345 161 44 1.16
1992 6164 1095 2510 2357 167 35 1.13
1993 6162 1129 2523 2298 176 36 1.11
1994 6266 1139 2546 2358 186 38 1.11
1995 6398 1157 2565 2442 197 36 1.12
1996 6542 1209 2624 2469 203 37 1.13
1997 6651 1208 2700 2495 209 38 1.13
1998 6643 1243 2766 2391 209 35 1.12
1999 6610 1270 2737 2352 217 33 1.10
2000 6765 1288 2838 2367 226 45 1.11
2001 6927 1312 2840 2492 237 46 1.12
2002 6996 1344 2831 2521 252 48 1.12
2003 7416 1391 2959 2743 276 48 1.17
2004 7807 1437 3053 2967 298 53 1.21
2005 8093 1480 3076 3157 320 60 1.24
2006 8370 1525 3089 3339 356 61 1.27
2007 8566 1572 3081 3464 382 68 1.28
2008 8783 1631 3122 3571 388 71 1.30
2009 8740 1585 3056 3620 413 66 1.28
2010 9167 1702 3114 3842 450 59 1.33

Turtwig

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm gobsmacked .. You know the sun drives the weather systems on earth right ? Taking 1 thing out of context does not prove anything. What about planetary wobble,drift,axis tilt. What about magnetic field fluctuations. Natural ozone depletion and replacement (could list tons more contributors). There are so many factors to take into account just averaging or tweaking your figures in the model to get what you want what does that prove. Statistical models and so on are just averaged basically then put into a model that then give an average. Which all has a % accepted amount of error compounding the flaws in the model there using.

You're appealing to ignorance never a good thing to do. Shuttles are bloody complicated things. So are many cancers that doesn't mean we can't understand them.

Climate models are constructed in a way to see how they compare with known climate evidence from the past. This isn't just a case of running a simulation and hoping it's right. It's a case of seeing how simulations compare to actual evidence from the past we have. Yes, there is a risk of here of fixing the trend to the data but that wasn't your concern. And really, no one has actually shown the models are that flawed. In fact, everyone goes out of the way to find faults in the models. That's how science works and by finding the holes and filling the gaps you get more robust models. The thing is that's been done and the picture they tell us is that C02 is the significant driver of the climate at the moment. The picture may be wrong, it may be the sun but there's currently little to actually suggest that.

Apart from a fixation on a now irrelevant hockey stick no one's really demonstrated critical flaws in these models. Climate temperature models are generally accepted as being reliable and accurate. Precipitation models are where the current challenges lie. But, we don't need those to discern the climate is changing. We need to discern what impacts it will have and what mitigation measures we can adapt.

Regarding the sun.
If it is the sun, why are we observing more warming at night time than during the day?

Filibuster

steddyeddy wrote: »

Can I ask a question for those who don't accept human accelerated climate change? Do you think that the scientists are making up the data or the the data doesn't show what they say it does?

They are using faulty computer models to fit their hypothesis. And when the actual data is going against their models they say climate change is on a "hiatus", like WTF??

Reviewing the effect of CO2 and the sun on global climate


This paper discusses the effect of the greenhouse phenomenon and CO2 on global climate and suggests that numerical models that lack adequate knowledge of fundamental related factors cannot be used to extract “sound” conclusions. A very basic demonstration of this is done through a simple comparison between estimates of the forecast for global temperature increase obtained by various independent studies. Observing the global temperature and the CO2 atmospheric concentration though the geological aeons implies no obvious correlation. Physical observation on other planets like Mars and Venus, needing no numerical modeling, demonstrates the effect of the atmospheric-CO2 partial pressure on the temperature of the atmosphere. Moreover the CO2 role as a factor of danger or a benefactor for life is also addressed. On the other hand the role of the sun in the presently observed global warming has been greatly underestimated. Scientific evidence shows that the orbit of the earth and the Milankovitch cycles greatly affect the climate. A discussion follows pointing out the prime role that the sun should have on the earth's climate with regard to solar cycles’ activity and irradiance, cosmic rays and cloud formation. The conclusion drawn here is that a natural signal of solar forcing has been mistakenly overlooked for an anthropogenic change, maybe owing to their quite similar effects on climate. For the moment science does not really have a complete and total understanding of the factors affecting the earth's complex climate system and therefore no sound conclusions can be drawn.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032113003651

darkpagandeath

Jernal wrote: »

You're appealing to ignorance never a good thing to do. Shuttles are bloody complicated things. So are many cancers that doesn't mean we can't understand them.

Climate models are constructed in a way to see how they compare with known climate evidence from the past. This isn't just a case of running a simulation and hoping it's right. It's a case of seeing how simulations compare to actual evidence from the past we have. Yes, there is a risk of here of fixing the trend to the data but that wasn't your concern. And really, no one has actually shown the models are that flawed. In fact, everyone goes out of the way to find faults in the models. That's how science works and by finding the holes and filling the gaps you get more robust models. The thing is that's been done and the picture they tell us is that C02 is the significant driver of the climate at the moment. The picture may be wrong, it may be the sun but there's currently little to actually suggest that.

Apart from a fixation on a now irrelevant hockey stick no one's really demonstrated critical flaws in these models. Climate temperature models are generally accepted as being reliable and accurate. Precipitation models are where the current challenges lie. But, we don't need those to discern the climate is changing. We need to discern what impacts it will have and what mitigation measures we can adapt.

Regarding the sun.
If it is the sun, why are we observing more warming at night time than during the day?

So your saying the whole earth is in darkness and not one side dark and other bathed in sunlight ? Jet stream funnelling warm air around, Planetary currents moving hot water from light side to dark side. More clouds on the dark side more moisture in the air creating a blanket letting out less heat ? could be a massive number of reasons for this.

Turtwig

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So your saying the whole earth is in darkness and not one side dark and other bathed in sunlight ? Jet stream funnelling warm air around, Planetary currents moving hot water from light side to dark side. More clouds on the dark side more moisture in the air creating a blanket letting out less heat ? could be a massive number of reasons for this.

I'm asking you for a specific answer. Not it could be this that or the other.

Jernal

Jernal wrote: »

Regarding the sun.
If it is the sun, why are we observing more warming at night time than during the day?

The sun is the primary input of energy amongst others, CO2 is the insulation.
Global temperatures equalise at different levels depending on the inputs & outputs, at the moment the increased insulation is having a greater affect than the reduced primary energy input.

Without a weakening solar cycle, the scary predictions from the IPCC may be closer than they are right now.

darkpagandeath

Jernal wrote: »

I'm asking you for a specific answer. Not it could be this that or the other.

I'm sorry I cant give you a specific one as planetary weather systems are massively complex systems that we cant model accurately. Hence the weather reports are updated daily and only forecasted into the future.

Akrasia

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So your saying the whole earth is in darkness and not one side dark and other bathed in sunlight ? Jet stream funnelling warm air around, Planetary currents moving hot water from light side to dark side. More clouds on the dark side more moisture in the air creating a blanket letting out less heat ? could be a massive number of reasons for this.

just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean climate scientists don't either.

C14N

spank_inferno wrote: »

But is it so heretical not to question the vast tax & expenditures by governments that do little to reverse a temperature rise of just 1 to 2 degrees over the past century.

Is it worth impeding our economy and the prosperity of developing nations when temperatures are rising 1 degree celcius per century (1.5 over the next 5 decades)???

Conversely, would it be worth it to make the earth nearly unlivable for the sake of a quick buck? There will always be things that people will want to spend more money on, there may not always be a chance to preserve the planet. How exactly would this hinder the prosperity of developing countries? It's industrialised nations causing almost all of the damage. Even then, if renewable energy was researched and made cheaper and more efficient, how would it harm them to use that instead?

Saying it's 1 degree per century out of context is meaningless, it doesn't convey the effects at all.

kneemos wrote: »

There's a lot of analogies going on as well.
Not a big fan of analogies.Comes across like a teacher talking to children.it is something that I would be concerned about if I did it.

Isn't that an analogy?

I personally tend to wonder if the deniers think that the people who spend all their time studying the effects of global warming have never taken into account things like the effect of the sun and the earth's natural cycles. I also tend to wonder why on earth anyone would think it would be in a government's best interest to invest in something like this for any reason besides trying to prevent climate change.

riffmongous

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm gobsmacked .. You know the sun drives the weather systems on earth right ? Taking 1 thing out of context does not prove anything. What about planetary wobble,drift,axis tilt. What about magnetic field fluctuations. Natural ozone depletion and replacement (could list tons more contributors). There are so many factors to take into account just averaging or tweaking your figures in the model to get what you want what does that prove. Statistical models and so on are just averaged basically then put into a model that then give an average. Which all has a % accepted amount of error compounding the flaws in the model there using.

And that's why we have a peer-review process!

darkpagandeath

Akrasia wrote: »

just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean climate scientists don't either.

If they did there would not be this debate would there no one would deny presented with such irrefutable evidence ? But there is no concrete proof it’s all could be probably is hmm what's the difference from the past to now human technology yes so this must be the cause. Don't remember satellites being in orbit of the sun for millions of years to measure the fluctuations over aeons (not years)

Hitchens

C14N wrote: »

I also tend to wonder why on earth anyone would think it would be in a government's best interest to invest in something like this for any reason besides trying to prevent climate change.

why would anyone think it's in governments best interests to allow the legal sale of tobacco products?..................................TAX, TAX, TAX, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!

C14N

darkpagandeath wrote: »

If they did there would not be this debate would there no one would deny presented with such irrefutable evidence ? But there is no concrete proof it’s all could be probably is hmm what's the difference from the past to now human technology yes so this must be the cause. Don't remember satellites being in orbit of the sun for millions of years to measure the fluctuations over aeons (not years)

The debate is only between members of the public and some politicians. The scientists aren't debating this much more than they're debating evolution.

why would anyone think it's in governments best interests to allow the legal sale of tobacco products?..................................TAX, TAX, TAX, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!

Except if they raise €100 million in taxes and then turn around and spend it on some windmills, they don't really gain much. Besides that, you do know that the government's money is still ours right? You seem to be suggesting that Enda Kenny and a few friends (as well as many other governments) raise taxes and then just pocket the lot which is completely unfounded.

Jonny7

Hitchens wrote: »

why would anyone think it's in governments best interests to allow the legal sale of tobacco products?..................................TAX, TAX, TAX, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!

Surely tax is in your best interests, not the government's.

Unless they are pocketing it?

darkpagandeath

C14N wrote: »

The debate is only between members of the public and some politicians. The scientists aren't debating this much more than they're debating evolution.

So the sun is what about 4.5 billion years old. And there study monitoring observation data is that old as well ? The same people will tell you that core samples of rocks can tell you the earth magnetic poles reverse periodically. But cant give you any idea of how or what causes it. I'm not refuting there is more extreme weather but this may not be effected as much as they think by man. There just banging on about co2 a lot of japan got levelled I'm pretty sure that released a lot of it too same when man made stuff all over gets destroyed. But did man make the earthquake/tsunami “insert natural disaster” ?

Filibuster

C14N wrote: »

The debate is only between members of the public and some politicians. The scientists aren't debating this much more than they're debating evolution.

That's not true, I've linked to peer reviewed studies published in the last few weeks disputing the IPCC claims. Saying AGW is settled is total bull****.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86795551&postcount=188

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86796145&postcount=194

C14N

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So the sun is what about 4.5 billion years old.And there study monitoring observation data is that old as well ? The same people will tell you that core samples of rocks can tell you the earth magnetic poles reverse periodically. But cant give you any idea of how or what causes it. I'm not refuting there is more extreme weather but this may not be effected as much as they think by man. There just banging on about co2 a lot of japan got levelled I'm pretty sure that released a lot of it too same when man made stuff all over gets destroyed. But did man make the earthquake/tsunami “insert natural disaster” ?

In case I gave you the wrong idea: I don't know almost anything about the earth or how it works. The area of science I study (and I'm still just a student) is physics, specifically electronics. I have no idea how they find this stuff out because it's so complex that people who do want to know have to go to a university and get a degree in it.

However, when those people who do study it extensively and who are independently reviewed and criticised by their peers over the course of several decades come again and again to the conclusion that yes, we're causing some serious problems, those are the people I listen to. Science is certainly open to questioning, but it usually requires significant pre-requisite knowledge before your questions are valid. You are just saying "I don't believe them because other disasters happen" and "how could they even know that?" and that's not valid reasoning. Almost nobody who actually does know all of this stuff is saying "I don't think we're doing much damage", the debate is purely among the common people who have, at best, a surface level understanding of the science behind the issue.

darkpagandeath

C14N wrote: »

In case I gave you the wrong idea: I don't know almost anything about the earth or how it works. The area of science I study (and I'm still just a student) is physics, specifically electronics. I have no idea how they find this stuff out because it's so complex that people who do want to know have to go to a university and get a degree in it.

However, when those people who do study it extensively and who are independently reviewed and criticised by their peers over the course of several decades come again and again to the conclusion that yes, we're causing some serious problems, those are the people I listen to. Science is certainly open to questioning, but it usually requires significant pre-requisite knowledge before your questions are valid. You are just saying "I don't believe them because other disasters happen" and "how could they even know that?" and that's not valid reasoning. Almost nobody who actually does know all of this stuff is saying "I don't think we're doing much damage", the debate is purely among the common people who have, at best, a surface level understanding of the science behind the issue.

So your not allowed to Question the data they have collected over a very short period of time relating to something massively important that's been around for about 4.5 billion years. The sun drives the weather no sun no weather end of. Insert 20 years of data into computer model that's missing say conservative 2 billion years of observations to say what the sun does.

kneemos

C14N wrote: »

In case I gave you the wrong idea: I don't know almost anything about the earth or how it works. The area of science I study (and I'm still just a student) is physics, specifically electronics. I have no idea how they find this stuff out because it's so complex that people who do want to know have to go to a university and get a degree in it.

However, when those people who do study it extensively and who are independently reviewed and criticised by their peers over the course of several decades come again and again to the conclusion that yes, we're causing some serious problems, those are the people I listen to. Science is certainly open to questioning, but it usually requires significant pre-requisite knowledge before your questions are valid. You are just saying "I don't believe them because other disasters happen" and "how could they even know that?" and that's not valid reasoning. Almost nobody who actually does know all of this stuff is saying "I don't think we're doing much damage", the debate is purely among the common people who have, at best, a surface level understanding of the science behind the issue.

As a "common"person I would just like to say I would have no problem believing them if their predictions even slightly accurate or vaguely consistent and didn't smack of scaremongering.

bandit600

Money is to blame.As ur man said.Its the root of all evil.Were just the slaves to it.

Akrasia

Filibuster wrote: »

That's not true, I've linked to peer reviewed studies published in the last few weeks disputing the IPCC claims. Saying AGW is settled is total bull****.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86795551&postcount=188

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86796145&postcount=194

One of the articles you linked to was co-authored by Willie Soon.
Soon has been exclusively funded by the oil and gas industry since 2002
http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon

Another article you linked to, one was published in 'Energy and Environment' which is not a reputable journal

The other article you linked to I have never heard of the journal or the authors so I can't comment on it's reliability.

One thing that is obvious however, is that you are not looking for the best possible research on the topic. You are looking for any research that you think supports your pre-existing position. This is called cherry picking and it is what lobbiests and science deniers do.

There are zero fields in science where there is 100% agreement by all scientists. This is why we talk about scientific consensus as the measure of what we accept to be true. If you want, you can easily find research articles that deny Evolution, Plate Tectonics, Germ theory of disease etc.

When the vast majority of the highest quality research points to one conclusion, we need to take it seriously. Pointing to fringe studies and then declaring that we can not act because there is still 'debate' and 'uncertainty' is the strategy of the Filibuster. It's about shutting down action by perpetual debate, and that is what you are trying to do on this issue