[Closed] Global warming update!

Rockape63 - Member
Do you know back in 2000, The Independent had a story headlined 'snowfalls are now just a thing of the past'

Dr Viner, Head of the Climate unit at the university of east Anglia said ... Children just aren't going to know what snow is'

"Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU)"

Bye troll.

([url= http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html ]Link[/url])

Oh come on ..... Play the game!

Well he's been rather more than that since http://www.mottmac.com/newsandpublications/newslist/?id=294066

Nice to know that for a man with such good predictive powers "David contributed to the reports of the IPCC"

" Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said."

So half way to the time he is anticipating and not far off track.

"Heavy snow will return occasionally" because of course twice this year and once a couple of years ago is the very definition of "occasionally".

PROOF! FACT!

of "something"...

It's been the coldest winter for 30 years!

Winter tyres in the UK are becoming extremely popular.

http://thecontributor.com/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-one-pie-chart

[img] [/img]

Every intelligent being that has ever looked at climate change outside a newspaper (or even studied it properly, with the scientific background to understand it, at university, like me) disagrees with the idea that climate change is nonsense.

Do you understand climate? Climate is over much bigger timescales than decades. A cold winter can happen at any time, even a period of warming. We will go through a spell of cold winters, then it will get warm again for a few years. Then the next spell of cold will come, but chances are it'll be warmer than the last lot of cold.

Climate change can't be measured over a 10 year time scale and while you'll probably argue that this is just a way of saying it doesn't exist your inherent misunderstanding and lack of knowledge on the issue doesn't really prove anything.

Global warming was predicted to cause more unpredictable weather, which seems to be exactly what we're seeing. The government's chief scientist thinks so too:

http://www.****/sciencetech/article-2298719/Governments-outgoing-chief-scientist-says-existing-CO2-levels-atmosphere-cause-storms-droughts-25-years.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

But he's just part of the conspiracy of course.

We cannot choose a climate that suits us and keep it forever.

Warmer or colder? Make a choice because there isn't a 'stable' option.

Apparently if we hadn't impacted on the climate it would be getting colder so we would be having the same debate (reversed.)

The best analogy I saw was it's like looking at sea level on a beach. It waries as the waves come in. Watch it longer: it varies as the tide rises and falls. In two weeks you'll see the change in tides from the moon. And that varies through the year. Sometimes air pressure changes and strong winds have their own effects. Underneath all that sea level is rising.

Interesting Pie chart

Hows about a pie chart that shows us how many scientific papers supported Galileo's theories on the solar system?

Or how about Alfred Wegener's theories on continental drift?

Consensus has no place in science, let alone as justification for the rejection of opposing theories.

😆

We cannot choose a climate that suits us and keep it forever.

Warmer or colder? Make a choice because there isn't a 'stable' option.

Apparently if we hadn't impacted on the climate it would be getting colder so we would be having the same debate (reversed.)

It's awesome we fixed that. By accident too.

Might as well trot this out again.

[img] [/img]

Wouldn't it be interesting if that list of things in Grums picture included the words "nuclear power"?

But that's just a silly picture.

How are you going to achieve those things while heading toward a deeper ice age?

We cannot maintain stability.

ooh! - can i post this graph please?

[img] [/img]

see! - it hasn't warmed up since 1997!

oh, hang on...

oh, hang on...

Basic principle of scientific data collection & analysis number one: garbage in = garbage out:

[img] ?w=640[/img]

😆

I like this picture.
[img] [/img]

Scientists are sure temp will follow CO2 and they also seem convinced that you cannot reverse the cycle quickly (it will take a few thousand years at least) so we may as well stop debating and start adapting. Warmth and all it brings with it is on the way. (Heating is going off tonight.. well maybe next week!)

What's contentration?

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

Consensus has no place in science,

We would be a bit ****ed if we did not agree on the basic methodology of science and we let folk publish any old crap without rules so we need a consensus. FWIW evolution is not a consenus but which way would you go - evolution or creationism? Consensus is essentially another word for evidence.

let alone as justification for the rejection of opposing theories.

garbage in = garbage out

Consensus is essentially another word for evidence.

its really not you know, it really, really is not, like its so far from being not, that it just isn't, understand?

What about proxy measure like say reducing glaciation and the polar caps?

Sure - but in that case why cherry pick the last thirty or forty, or even a hundred years to prove 'warming'?

[img] [/img]

Ooh, look, a downward temperature trend! its all going to be OK after all!

Not even you [trolling] think its getting colder
RE consensus then I assume the jury is out on
evolution or creationism
medicine v homeopathy
Phrenology v criminiology

they all have consensus that is derived from the data they dont just agree because they like consensus.
Watch the video I have nothing more to say on it that there as that is how good your argument is.

Anyway dinner over so find a new play thing to scribble with - why do you never get bored with this? It was really rather funny to see how nice you played when a mod was there - you really went up in my esteem with that transformation into playing nicely

Not even you [trolling] think its getting colder

Since when?

its all about timescale isn't it?

Sure - but in that case why cherry pick the last thirty or forty, or even a hundred years to prove 'warming'?

Because that's when CO2 emissions have gone through the roof?

So there was no climate variability prior to the change in CO2 emissions, perfect, in that case you've proved your point then, haven't you.

So there was no climate variability prior to the change in CO2 emissions, perfect, in that case you've proved your point then, haven't you.

Wtf are you talking about?

[i]Wtf are you talking about?[/i]

I'd say he was talking about the fact that global temperatures have changed through the ages......long before CO2 emissions 'went through the roof'

not familiar with the poster then?
No one denies that temperature changes without the influence of man but in order to determine if it changes due to us pumping out billions of tons of a known greenhouse gas it may make some sense to study the time frame when we are doing this rather than say oh look it was hotter when the land was molten lava and had volcanic spews on a daily basis or some other reference point with no bearing [ beyond baseline ] on what you are measuring. It is a silly point as no one denies we have natural climate change the only question is can we affect climate- i fail to see [ even without studying or prima facie] why anyone would conclude we cannot so i guess the question is are we?
So is increase the amount of heat energy we absorb from the sun by increasing the greenhouse gas warming us or not?
I would say the answer is rather obvious tbh. "proving" it to the satisfaction of all [which really means those who dont study it]is the harder part

So in summary its getting warmer.

When?

I'd say he was talking about the fact that global temperatures have changed through the ages......long before CO2 emissions 'went through the roof'

Yeah but so what? Doesn't make AGW any less real or potentially problematic.

So in summary its getting warmer.

When

So is increase the amount of heat energy we absorb from the sun by increasing the greenhouse gas warming us or not?
I would say the answer is rather obvious

If it's so obvious, you'll be able to provide us with a simple explanation of the proof that increases in CO2 concentrations are directly resulting in warming? Warming that it isn't possible to attribute to some other natural process (noting that global temperature has varied a [b]lot[/b] more than the current warming we're seeing)?

in order to determine if it changes due to us pumping out billions of tons of a known greenhouse gas it may make some sense to study the time frame when we are doing this

On the contrary - how do you tell if that's not natural temperature change without also studying periods when we weren't directly influencing the environment?

just after you understand the difference between weather and climate

Maybe we should ask Dr David Viner about that?

Warming that it isn't possible to attribute to some other natural process (noting that global temperature has varied a lot more than the current warming we're seeing)?

Is it not the case that warming is now faster than has ever happened before?

a simple explanation

Why does it have to be simple?

It seems David Viner and Mojib Latif are both stuggling to understand the difference between weather and climate as well. Good job, they are not experts in the field. Sorry, wait a minute....

But to be fair to Latif he has acknowledged that warming is not now faster than has ever happened before. But no fear, good old GW will be back once the "the natural and man-made causes start complimenting each other" again.

And here we were, worried that NASA's analysis indicated that we are now entering another natural cold phase akin to 1945-77 might be true. Thank goodness that's a load of nonsense. We will be back to warming again soon.

But to be fair to Latif he has acknowledged that warming is not now faster than has ever happened before. But no fear, good old GW will be back once the "the natural and man-made causes start complimenting each other" again.
And here we were, worried that NASA's analysis indicated that we are now entering another natural cold phase akin to 1945-77 might be true. Thank goodness that's a load of nonsense. We will be back to warming again soon.

Given your current over-sensitivity, perhaps you'd care to say exactly what you mean. Sorry, if that's "impertinent" to ask.

"Why does it have to be (so) simple?"

Why does it have to be simple?

Because apparently "the answer is rather obvious"

That still wouldn't necessarily make it a simple explanation.

thm, was your last but one post, essentially sarcastic? (Just missing your usual winker smileys if so.)

You asked for a simple explanation it is the words you used -
you can read synonyms [url= http://thesaurus.com/browse/obvious ]here[/url] and would you believe simple is not one of them
However the antonyms are ambiguous, indefinite, obscure, unclear, vague
which would seem to be your point 😉

If it's so obvious, you'll be able to provide us with a simple explanation of the proof that increases in CO2 concentrations are directly resulting in warming?

noting that global temperature has varied a lot more than the current warming we're seeing

how do you tell if that's not natural temperature change without also studying periods when we weren't directly influencing the environment

Nice cherry picking of the data 😀
Of course we need a baseline I said that, its pretty clear [ for me] what i meant

* it is obviously utterly irrelevant, in matters of science, what either of us thinks prima facie tbh.