The Great Global Warming Swindle

djpbarry · 08-12-2009 4:36pm

zuutroy wrote: »

Huh? Its widely accepted that solar activity was at its highest level for several hundred years in the late 20th century.

Maybe it is. Has it been increasing over the last few decades?

zuutroy wrote: »

I know the 35 years of cooling after WWII was attributed to aerosols but has there been any report on the current deviation between the static global temperature coupled with increasing CO2 as shown below?

I’m not sure. Changes in ocean heat content probably play a role. Oscillations in solar activity probably play a role. I doubt there’s any one single cause. Besides, there are plenty of local minima and maxima in the temperature record.

zuutroy · 08-12-2009 4:49pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe it is. Has it been increasing over the last few decades?

Judge for yourself. Seems fairly constant since the 60's. I'm not sure if temperature is expected to lag sunspots by a certain amount of years in that explanation.

auerillo · 08-12-2009 5:28pm

It's a shame in the graph the temperatures seem to be only there since 1998, and not for the preceding 100 years to give it more perspective.

I was looking today at temperatures for Central England and Kilkenny which seem to suggest that between 1835 and 2005 there was an average annual increase, for both weather stations, of 0.5°C in 170 years.

My understanding is that, since 2005 annual average temperatures have declined, suggesting that, if there is warming, it's hardly noticeable, and in the meantime there are peaks and troughs which were not, presumably, caused by CO2 levels, but by other factors. It seems, from the graphs, that fluctuations in the annual average temperature are normal, and we are still within the historical normal fluctuation range.

djpbarry · 08-12-2009 6:38pm

samson09 wrote: »

At least someone knows what they're talking about!

Who?

djpbarry · 08-12-2009 6:40pm

auerillo wrote: »

I was looking today at temperatures for Central England and Kilkenny...

Why just Central England and Kilkenny? Surely it would make more sense to consider the global temperature?

e04bf099 · 08-12-2009 6:56pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Why just Central England and Kilkenny? Surely it would make more sense to consider the global temperature?

I hope nobody replies to this seriously. This is the definition of trolling.

auerillo · 08-12-2009 7:25pm

auerillo wrote: »

It's a shame in the graph the temperatures seem to be only there since 1998, and not for the preceding 100 years to give it more perspective.

I was looking today at temperatures for Central England and Kilkenny which seem to suggest that between 1835 and 2005 there was an average annual increase, for both weather stations, of 0.5°C in 170 years.

My understanding is that, since 2005 annual average temperatures have declined, suggesting that, if there is warming, it's hardly noticeable, and in the meantime there are peaks and troughs which were not, presumably, caused by CO2 levels, but by other factors. It seems, from the graphs, that fluctuations in the annual average temperature are normal, and we are still within the historical normal fluctuation range.

As a postscript, looking at the Hadley and CRU Temperatures above, they seem to suggest that temperatures declined between 2005 and 2008 by a little over 0.5°C.

If this applies to central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe), that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

djpbarry · 08-12-2009 7:43pm

auerillo wrote: »

As a postscript, looking at the Hadley and CRU Temperatures above, they seem to suggest that temperatures declined between 2005 and 2008 by a little over 0.5°C.

According to the HadCrut3 data set, the temperature anomolies for 2005 and 2008 were 0.479 and 0.315 respectively. Not that individual data points mean all that much in isolation.

auerillo wrote: »

If this applies to central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe), that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming...

I have absolutely no idea how you've arrived at that conclusion?

bonkey · 08-12-2009 8:13pm

auerillo wrote: »

that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny

Only if you misunderstand or misrepresent what global warming, and the theory of global warming is about.

auerillo · 08-12-2009 8:15pm

bonkey wrote: »

Only if you misunderstand or misrepresent what global warming, and the theory of global warming is about.

Whether or not one understands the theory of global warming, it is evident that there has been virtually no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

e04bf099 · 08-12-2009 8:43pm

djpbarry wrote: »

auerillo wrote: »

As a postscript, looking at the Hadley and CRU Temperatures above, they seem to suggest that temperatures declined between 2005 and 2008 by a little over 0.5°C.

If this applies to central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe), that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

I have absolutely no idea how you've arrived at that conclusion?

Misrepresentation corrected;)

bonkey · 08-12-2009 9:00pm

auerillo wrote: »

Whether or not one understands the theory of global warming, it is evident that there has been virtually no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

I heard the other day that average salaries had dropped 10% because of the financial crisis. I know my salary hasn't dropped, so obviously the claim was suspect.

Right?

(In case its not clear, your argument is showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what an average is)

auerillo · 08-12-2009 9:12pm

bonkey wrote: »

I heard the other day that average salaries had dropped 10% because of the financial crisis. I know my salary hasn't dropped, so obviously the claim was suspect.

Right?

(In case its not clear, your argument is showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what an average is)

Perhaps you are showing a misunderstanding in appearing to claim that I mentioned anything about average. We seem to be descending into semantics. What I said was

auerillo wrote: »

If this applies to central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe), that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

Whether or not I understand what an average is is irrelevant to the temperatures for central England and Kilkenny.

bonkey · 08-12-2009 9:44pm

auerillo wrote: »

Perhaps you are showing a misunderstanding in appearing to claim that I mentioned anything about average.

You did. You mentioned global warming.

Global warming refers to an increase in average temperature, where that average is taken across the globe.

If you changed your comment to refer to local temperature, there'd be no problem in what you said....except of course that it would become clear that it had no relevance to a discussion about global issues.

We seem to be descending into semantics.

That's the darned thing about discussions pertaining to scientific issues. Semantic accuracy is essential. Using vague terms as you feel like using them rather then as they should be correctly used only serves to confuse the issue.

Surely a correct and accurate understanding of the issues at hand is essential in arriving at an informed opinion?

Whether or not I understand what an average is is irrelevant to the temperatures for central England and Kilkenny.

I agree. It is relevant to the (ab)use of the term global warming in relation to those temperatures however.

djpbarry · 08-12-2009 11:07pm

e04bf099 wrote: »

Misrepresentation corrected;)

What misrepresentation? I was drawing attention to the fact that temperatures in two different locales are being compared to a global average.

e04bf099 · 08-12-2009 11:19pm

djpbarry wrote: »

What misrepresentation? I was drawing attention to the fact that temperatures in two different locales are being compared to a global average.

you wrote

...

instead of

in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

... which was significant to is meaning if you'll try to be a little pragmatic for a bit.

That said, auerillo had the wrong of it on this occasion because of his clumsy use of the expression "global warming" instead of "regional warming". But you still misrepresented his obvious meaning.

djpbarry · 09-12-2009 12:51am

e04bf099 wrote: »

... which was significant to is meaning if you'll try to be a little pragmatic for a bit.

Not really - as I said already, I was highlighting the fact that a global average was being compared to regional temperatures. But then, seeing as how you referred to same in your last post, I think you knew that.

dahak · 09-12-2009 12:55am

auerillo wrote: »

As a postscript, looking at the Hadley and CRU Temperatures above, they seem to suggest that temperatures declined between 2005 and 2008 by a little over 0.5°C.

If this applies to central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe), that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

This is auerillo's original post, the two paragraphs are linked so they need to be considered together. The first paragraph talks about global temperatures, referring to the Hadley and MSU graph that zuutroy presented.

zuutroy wrote: »

Auerillo takes a trend from the graph saying that

auerillo wrote: »

...they seem to suggest that temperatures declined between 2005 and 2008 by a little over 0.5°C.

So far this has been all about global temperatures.

Now in the second paragraph auerillo asks

auerillo wrote: »

If this [the global reduction in temperature of 0.5°C between 2005 and 2008] applies to central England and Kilkenny...

Bolded section inserted by dahak.

So the attempt here is to apply an average global reduction in temperature (from the graph) over three years to two specific locations, central England and Kilkenny in this case. As the graph of temperature central England and Kilkenny finishes in 2005, so I can only assume that that the implication meant was that if the central England and Kilkenny graph had the years 2005 to 2008, they would show a 0.5°C drop in temperature between 2005 and 2008, following the global trends.

So now we have extended a temperature series for two sites using global temperature difference over the time period to be extended.

auerillo wrote: »

Extending the graph for central England and Kilkenny in this way would bring a reduction in temperature for 2007 and 2008 which would lend strength to the following:

auerillo wrote: »

...that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

e04bf099 wrote: »

you wrote instead of ... which was significant to is meaning if you'll try to be a little pragmatic for a bit.

That said, auerillo had the wrong of it on this occasion because of his clumsy use of the expression "global warming" instead of "regional warming". But you still misrepresented his obvious meaning.

There was no obvious meaning as far as I can see, global temperature trends were used to extend the temperature series for two sites. Then the statement that there has been no warming (we'll leave out the global part for now) at these sites over the last 173 years. Now as the topic of this tread is abut climate change what is the implication here supposed to be?
That there has been no warming at two specific locations? That because there has been no warming at two specific locations that climate change is not occurring? It is not obvious what the point being made was at all.

Now if globe or global had been used once it might be fair to say that was a slip, but it was used twice.

auerillo wrote: »

...central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe) that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny...

bold formatting applied by dahak

That would seem to suggest that the intent was to discredit the concept of global warming by trying to show that two specific sites had not had a temperature change, if not what was the 'obvious' meaning?

auerillo · 09-12-2009 2:00pm

dahak wrote: »

...That would seem to suggest that the intent was to discredit the concept of global warming by trying to show that two specific sites had not had a temperature change, if not what was the 'obvious' meaning?

I hesitate to suggest this, but might it not be better to read what I wrote rather than what I didn't write, or what it "seems to suggest" ?

I only point this out as you seem to have gone to a lot of trouble making assumptions about what my post seems to suggest, and from reading your post it's not what i meant to suggest at all.

Your confusion seems to be that you assume the phrase "global warming" means only what you want it to mean, and not what someone else might want it to mean. I used it in the sense that both central England and Kilkenny are members of the globe, and it appears there has been no discernable warming in either place in over 170 years.

I found that interesting, just as I find that the same appears to be the case for Dublin in another thread.

dahak · 09-12-2009 4:04pm

auerillo wrote: »

I hesitate to suggest this, but might it not be better to read what I wrote rather than what I didn't write, or what it "seems to suggest" ?

I only point this out as you seem to have gone to a lot of trouble making assumptions about what my post seems to suggest, and from reading your post it's not what i meant to suggest at all.

What did you mean to suggest? the key points as I see them are:

You looked at the Hadley and MSU temperature graph and took a 0.5C average global temperature drop from 2005 to 2008
You applied this global average to extend the temperature time series for two spectific locations, namely Kilkenny and central England
You 'suggest' that no global warming* has occurred in Kilkenny or central England

*See below on redefining terms.

auerillo wrote: »

Your confusion seems to be that you assume the phrase "global warming" means only what you want it to mean, and not what someone else might want it to mean. I used it in the sense that both central England and Kilkenny are members of the globe

The first thing that came to mind after reading this was a quote from the The Princess Bride

The Princess Bride

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's not what I want it to mean, global warming is a technical term with a specific meaning. I have to fully agree with bonkey here.

bonkey wrote: »

That's the darned thing about discussions pertaining to scientific issues. Semantic accuracy is essential. Using vague terms as you feel like using them rather then as they should be correctly used only serves to confuse the issue.

Oxford English Dictionary

global warming, n.
A long-term gradual increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere and oceans, spec. one generally thought to be occurring at the present time, and to be associated esp. with side effects of recent human activity such as the increased production of greenhouse gases.

Merriam Webster

global warming:
an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution

e04bf099 · 09-12-2009 5:29pm

You're right. He should have been more explicit. But auerillo has made a lot of good points also. There are a lot of people here (mods and all), regardless of their positions, who have refused to accept their own misleading expressions, some intentional, some inadvertant. It all makes for an unnecessarilly convoluted and painfully pedantic debate. I for one, hope that my mistakes are pointed out pragmatically by people I tend to agree with and don't agree with.

09-12-2009 6:19pm

Well I hope all you global warming climate change activists are satisfied, €1.50 increas on a tank of fuel from midnight! :mad:

This is the reality of what you wanted!

e04bf099 · 09-12-2009 6:50pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I hope all you global warming climate change activists are satisfied, €1.50 increas on a tank of fuel from midnight! :mad:

This is the reality of what you wanted!

+1000

09-12-2009 9:35pm

From next year (after May) it will cost between 4-11% extra to heat your house, great if you've already had a pay cut.

The great swindle has started!

zuutroy · 09-12-2009 9:59pm

but gas is falling 8% so we're even!

e04bf099 · 09-12-2009 10:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

From next year (after May) it will cost between 4-11% extra to heat your house, great if you've already had a pay cut.

The great swindle has started!

I'm not a green no more, but... insulate. And you could always think about using green diesel:D

I'm a very reserved person and am humble with my opinions. I always consider my sources. But I've talked to people I trust, who have researched this subject thoroughly, including my uncle, who is a retired geneticist that used to work in Trinity with nothing to gain from either eventuality, and I just want to vent my feelings a little. Obviously he is not a "climatologist" or any kind of public authority, so I would never attempt to use this as an argument for other people to go by, but it is an argument for the formation of my beliefs. It is a damn sight better than blind faith in fallible malleable scientific institutions. I still can't believe that the proponents are just burying their heads in the sand. It just shows how emotionally invested people were. I was an active member of the Greens until recently. I'll probably stay in because I do believe we need to get off oil and reform the planning process, but I'll be considering my allegiance very carefully in the few months.

Its such a relief to know the worlds not going to end. I think we should all have a big tyre burning party:D I'll provide the beer if yee provide the tyres:D

09-12-2009 10:33pm

e04bf099 wrote: »

I'm not a green no more, but... insulate. And you could always think about using green diesel:D

Yep! When I built the house I doubled up on the insulation, so have smaller than average fuel bills.

Still annoying though! All we need is another speculative run on Oil and we're all screwed - transport heating electricity etc, all depend on oil.

e04bf099 · 09-12-2009 10:40pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep! When I built the house I doubled up on the insulation, so have smaller than average fuel bills.

Still annoying though! All we need is another speculative run on Oil and we're all screwed - transport heating electricity etc, all depend on oil.

The really scary one is the speculative run on carbon credits! Banks around the world may realise, and very suddenly, that they're worthless fictional bull****.

hoser expat · 09-12-2009 10:53pm

auerillo wrote: »

I was looking today at temperatures for Central England and Kilkenny which seem to suggest that between 1835 and 2005 there was an average annual increase, for both weather stations, of 0.5°C in 170 years.

quote]

So which is it? An average annual increase of 0.5oC over 170 years (which would imply that Kilkenny long passed the boiling point) or 0.5oC over 170 years?

It's not just semantics you know.

The problem here is that people are just throwing out numbers they really don't understand. Leave science to the scientists. Yes, I am one.

e04bf099 · 09-12-2009 11:12pm

hoser expat wrote: »

So which is it? An average annual increase of 0.5oC over 170 years (which would imply that Kilkenny long passed the boiling point) or 0.5oC over 170 years?

It's not just semantics you know.

The problem here is that people are just throwing out numbers they really don't understand. Leave science to the scientists. Yes, I am one.

Well I am put in my place. I'd better cancel my tyre burning party. Damn!

If you need to concentrate your arguments on typos then the justification for your faith in these disgraced institutions must be weak.

Johro · 10-12-2009 2:31am

probe wrote: »

1. The petabytes of objector content to this programme – most of it probably comes from the “scientists” who have their snout in the trough of CO2 global warming cash.

2. Even if CO2 has some part to play in the equation, it doesn’t really matter what Ireland or the rest of Europe does to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions – because China, India, the rest of Asia and North America will continue to suck up all the carbon based fuels on the planet to grow their economies.

3. The only positive thing that Ireland and the rest of Europe can do is develop a mass market in renewable technologies which lowers the cost of renewable energy based systems. Germany is the only country to have made a dent in this direction. Make fossil fuels obsolete before they are used up.

4. EU initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are simply bureaucrats **ssing into the wind, if one can be so vulgar, in the global scheme of things. It will make absolutely no difference to climate change, and will cost business and consumers €zillions, to no useful end.

Nicely put. Yeah I must say I don't have too much confidence in the politicians, simply because politicians the world over are owned by the banks first, then lobby groups like the oil lobby and road lobby (gotta keep building em ya know..) and the big pharmaceutical companies. Also, any of those can pay scientists to say whatever they want them to say. We see it all the time in the TV ads for beauty products, detergents etc. Maybe the only and best way is for people to start their own initiatives, community cooperatives like some that exist not too far from where I live,where locals have put in their own money to set up wind turbines which supply their farms and even give them surplus energy which they sell to the grid. Ya gotta start at home.

Son Of A Vidic · 10-12-2009 3:43am

Carbon credits!... what next? maybe Fart vouchers? In the words of Public Enemy...''Don't believe the hype''. The Earth predates us by oh, a couple of Billion years. It goes through it's natural cycle - Ice sheet advances - Ice sheet retreats and so on.This will continue long after we are gone, I think mankind should worry more about something like Ebola Reston mutating with Ebola Zaire. Now that's something that will pretty much wipe us out, how to stop cows farting doesn't really put a blip on my radar.

Mahatma coat · 10-12-2009 8:19am

A lot of people could do their bit to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions very easily, Simply stop Breathing out

But anyway Cows Fart a Methanic substance.

and as always its worth bearing in mind that the Planet wobbles on its own cycle and the Sahara was a Forest at one point in the not too distant(geologically) past.

auerillo · 10-12-2009 9:19am

hoser expat wrote: »

auerillo wrote: »

I was looking today at temperatures for Central England and Kilkenny which seem to suggest that between 1835 and 2005 there was an average annual increase, for both weather stations, of 0.5°C in 170 years.

quote]

So which is it? An average annual increase of 0.5oC over 170 years (which would imply that Kilkenny long passed the boiling point) or 0.5oC over 170 years?

It's not just semantics you know.

The problem here is that people are just throwing out numbers they really don't understand. Leave science to the scientists. Yes, I am one.

For a scientist, you have to ask which it is? Couldn't you look at the graph and apply your scientific brain to the problem? For clarification, we were discussing a graph showing "average annual" temperatures, and the "average annual" temperature rose by something in the order of 0.5°C over 170 years, as was evident from the graph under discussion. If you aren't able, as a scientist, to read that from the graph, then I'm sorry for you.

It must be irritating to you that "people" are throwing out numbers they don't understand.

I have to say I think it unlikely that many non scientists will go for your exciting idea of leaving science to the scientists. Especially on a message boards forum for everyone, and not just the scientists. Good luck with the idea though.

auerillo · 10-12-2009 9:32am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

A lot of people could do their bit to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions very easily, Simply stop Breathing out

But anyway Cows Fart a Methanic substance.

and as always its worth bearing in mind that the Planet wobbles on its own cycle and the Sahara was a Forest at one point in the not too distant(geologically) past.

The wobbling abouit the axis is called precession and it takes something like 26000 years for the precession cycle to complete. It's unlikely we'd notice any short term heating or cooling effects from precession, as it happens very slowly.

Although it does serve to remind us that scientists from one discipline sometimes see an effect and don't know what is causing it, while scientists from another discipline understand well what might be causing it.

lostinsuperfunk · 10-12-2009 11:59am

It isn't useful to select just two years from a long record, calculate the difference between their temperatures, and make a pronouncement on warming or cooling in the intervening period.

There is always year-to-year variability. A cold year can appear during a warm period, and vice versa. The analysis has to be done with rigorous application of statistics, and even that may not be sufficient.

For an example, see this paper which considers (and rejects) the possibility that the recent series of warm years could just arise by random variability in an unchanging climate.

djpbarry · 10-12-2009 1:54pm

Johro wrote: »

Yeah I must say I don't have too much confidence in the politicians, simply because politicians the world over are owned by the banks first, then lobby groups like the oil lobby and road lobby (gotta keep building em ya know..) and the big pharmaceutical companies.

Let’s save that for the CT forum, shall we?

Johro wrote: »

Also, any of those can pay scientists to say whatever they want them to say. We see it all the time in the TV ads for beauty products, detergents etc.

So you need a scientist to back you up before making a claim such as “8/10 hairdressers agree it leaves hair touchable soft” ?

djpbarry · 10-12-2009 1:55pm

medicman2009 wrote: »

The Earth predates us by oh, a couple of Billion years. It goes through it's natural cycle...

Ah, the old ‘natural cycle’ argument. So if the observed warming is ‘natural’, what’s causing it?

djpbarry · 10-12-2009 1:55pm

auerillo wrote: »

As a postscript, looking at the Hadley and CRU Temperatures above, they seem to suggest that temperatures declined between 2005 and 2008 by a little over 0.5°C.

If this applies to central England and Kilkenny, (who are both certainly members of the globe), that suggests that for the past 173 years, there has been no global warming in either central England or Kilkenny,, apart from normal fluctuations up and down, over the 173 years.

So, you’re using the Hadley data (which clearly shows a global warming trend) to show indirectly that no warming is taking place at individual locations in an attempt to demonstrate (presumably) that global warming is not taking place?

Mozart1986 · 10-12-2009 4:26pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, the old ‘natural cycle’ argument. So if the observed warming is ‘natural’, what’s causing it?

Many things. The Earth and its climate are very complex. Carbon dioxide is a relatively minor green-house gas and the green theories are contentious because the troposphere is not warming as it should in climatological models. There are many contentious issues surrounding the warming. What the e-mails clearly show, unless you have your head in the sand, is that the warming is not as dramatic as is being presented by those who believe they are fundamentally right. There is no room for funamentalists in science though, and even if the popular conception of this farce is slow to turn, scientists will soon stop regarding the scientists involved as legitimate.

So to answer your question, there is no simple answer, whether you believe it is anthropogenic warming or not.

auerillo · 10-12-2009 5:08pm

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

It isn't useful to select just two years from a long record, calculate the difference between their temperatures, and make a pronouncement on warming or cooling in the intervening period.

There is always year-to-year variability. A cold year can appear during a warm period, and vice versa. The analysis has to be done with rigorous application of statistics, and even that may not be sufficient.

For an example, see this paper which considers (and rejects) the possibility that the recent series of warm years could just arise by random variability in an unchanging climate.

I'm surprised, as it seems that we've had many periods of warm years before, and many periods of cool years too.

From looking at the temperature records, it doesn't seem that the temperatures in recent years are warmer than periods we have seen in the past.

10-12-2009 5:40pm

auerillo wrote: »

I'm surprised, as it seems that we've had many periods of warm years before, and many periods of cool years too.

From looking at the temperature records, it doesn't seem that the temperatures in recent years are warmer than periods we have seen in the past.

True..

I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the question as to why it was warmer in the Medieval warm period and why was it colder during the mini ice age from supporters of AGW!

djpbarry · 10-12-2009 6:09pm

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Carbon dioxide is a relatively minor green-house gas and the green theories are contentious because the troposphere is not warming as it should in climatological models.

Isn’t it? According to a 2006 report by the US Climate Change Science Program:

For recent decades, all current atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

Mozart1986 wrote: »

What the e-mails clearly show, unless you have your head in the sand, is that the warming is not as dramatic as is being presented by those who believe they are fundamentally right.

Where do the emails show this?

Mozart1986 wrote: »

So to answer your question, there is no simple answer...

So in other words, you don’t know, but you’re going to chalk it up to some unknown ‘natural’ phenomenon?

Deleted User wrote: »

I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the question as to why it was warmer in the Medieval warm period and why was it colder during the mini ice age from supporters of AGW!

Possibly because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it was warmer during the MWP, for example.

dahak · 10-12-2009 7:07pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

But anyway Cows Fart a Methanic substance.

I'm not quite sure what a methanic substance is but cattle and all ruminants produce methane and other gasses as part of their digestive process.
These gasses are expelled through the animals mouth (eructation or belching)

10-12-2009 7:28pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Possibly because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it was warmer during the MWP, for example.

Well the evidence that there was a MWP and an LIA is very extensive, and in all probability more conclusive than that, that the world will continue to warm as a direct result of manmade CO2.

Rather than pick one article for it to be "torn to pieces", here is a google link to some of the evidence.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%27Medieval+Warm+Period&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&rlz=1R2RNWN_enFR343&aq=f&oq=

bonkey · 10-12-2009 8:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Rather than pick one article for it to be "torn to pieces", here is a google link to some of the evidence.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%27Medieval+Warm+Period&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&rlz=1R2RNWN_enFR343&aq=f&oq=

From teh first hit that produces:

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region

Indeed, from the first variety of hits, there's nothing in there to show that there was significant global changes in temperature for either the MWP or the LIA.

Son Of A Vidic · 10-12-2009 10:52pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, the old ‘natural cycle’ argument. So if the observed warming is ‘natural’, what’s causing it?

To answer the above, I would suspect the Earth.

Is Humankind so full of it's own importance that it suggests the Earth was in stasis prior to our arrival. Has it not gone through various cycles over the last 4.5 Billion years? I don't think any scientist disputes the advance and retreat of the ice caps throughout the ages. Now what has caused this??? The earth was once colder and the ice caps advanced - then the Earth got warmer and the ice caps receded. That might indicate to most people that a cycle/natural process of some sort was taking place and amazingly we weren't even on the planet! Such evidence hidden in plane sight negates the need for 'carbon Taxes' and the other potentially wonderful ways of 'screwing' Joe Public of his/her hard earned money. But God forbid if we try and get in the way of that Bulldozer!

djpbarry · 11-12-2009 12:23am

medicman2009 wrote: »

To answer the above, I would suspect the Earth.

Could you be a little more specific? If the mean global temperature is increasing, that implies that the planet is holding more heat energy, which means that the Earth is either receiving more energy, losing less energy, or both. So, which is it and what is causing it?

Code Breaker · 11-12-2009 1:15am

Well from what I understand, the changes in the earths temperature is almost if not entirely natural.

One of the main reasons for this is solar activity. This refers to sunspots which are areas of the sun with intense magnetic activity. Research has shown that when the magnetism of the sun is strong, the energy output of the sun is also more intense. The sun goes through an 11 yr sunspot cycles, they can however be between 8 and 15 yrs.

Climate scientists believe they can reliably reconstruct Northern Hemisphere land temperature data back to 1700.
When the activity of changes in the suns magnetism are superposed on the reconstructed temperature record, then the two show a good correlation. The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change.

For example, a strong warming in the late 19th century, continuing in the early 20th century, up to the 1940s, seems to follow the sun's energy output changes fairly well.
The mid-20th century cooling, and some of the latter 20th century warming also seem matched to changes in the sun.

the_barfly1 · 11-12-2009 1:43am

djpbarry wrote: »

Could you be a little more specific? If the mean global temperature is increasing, that implies that the planet is holding more heat energy, which means that the Earth is either receiving more energy, losing less energy, or both. So, which is it and what is causing it?

Eh, theres this big 'ol ball of gas up in the sky that supplies our solar system with all its light and heat energy.. Think its called the sun.
Rumour has it that it gets hotter and colder sometimes.

Might want to look somewhere in that direction maybe. You're welcome.

EDIT: see also code breaker's post for further info ^^^

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Comments