[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

Blue stilton on day old bagette, nuke for 60 secs....lush! This thread has been without a graph for too many pages now.

[IMG] [/IMG]

Isn't that the fundamental issue behind developing statistical trends? Reproducable experiments and methods here are vital so that once a set of data has been produced others can reproduce and improve on it.. Then following that process to it's conclusion the data is being constantly updated and 'improved'.. Once we have lots of data points on the graph (meta analysis) we can then look at it as a whole and see if we can spot trends..

Couldn't agree more - however, as you say - the data needs to be open - at the moment it isn't, neither the raw data or the explanations behind the data modification, certianly if the stuff that has come out was subjected to they type of QA analysis that we used under GLP regulations then a lot of it would be rejected.

Which is why good science never accepts one set of data as 'proof' or 'the truth' and always strives to do more and more detailed studies that will either back up or counter previous data.. The whole process needs to be taken as a whole

The problem is that the validation of the historical proxies relies on the same "value added" data that the recent trends are calculated against - the actual "pool" of data that everyone is working off is amazingly small - if there were separate verifiable records for australia, that you could compare and contrast data with then all would be good, but the truth is that everyones running off the same limited dataset - Are we all consuming the fruit of a poisoned tree? or for that matter the cheese of the poisoned goat!

To expand your white stilton experiment, what if one goat eats some turpentine, all the milk goes into one vat at the farm and then goes to the dairy without being checked - where it gets sent to all the local cheesemakers - so that one batch of milk taints everyones cheese to taste slightly of turpentine, then you compare all the other previous and new batches of cheese against the slightly turpentine one calling that your "benchmark" flavour for white stilton, which flavour is now "normal"? 🙂

Well actually like most you challenge got i got through the whole degree post degree and professional exam education thing. My field is not relevent to the current argument but it does teach me logic and evidence based reasoning. I was instantly equiped to understand the "moon is made of cheese" device but also having passed my maths chemistry and physics o'leval and read a lot of New Scientist understood the limits on scientific certainty in any case.
To move on from the understanding of the language of science and address your argument. You reject the man made climate change via co2 emmisions explanation of global warming, as not proven. I belive that you instead postulate that global warming is part of a natural cycle. This seems to need some clarification . I would suggest that a natural cycle would involve a decernable pattern reoccuring over an extended period of time ,can you point to such a cycle which would suggest a warming at this point .Perhaps a graph would help? If such a cycle exists we must not confuse cause and effect . The cycle is the effect not the cause. What caused the warming in the previous periods that you allocate to the natural cycle? are those factors present now? If not then is not the identified rise in man made co2 a very likely cause.
My own limited understanding was that the natural cycle thesis suggests that far from warming now we should be entering a cooling period or indeed ice age. Hence a part of the concern about the current climate patterns.
As you seem to reject accepted science please can we know your sciencetific qualification.

My vote is coop Gouda

My own limited understanding was that the natural cycle thesis suggests that far from warming now we should be entering a cooling period or indeed ice age.

Ice core sample data shows that rises in CO2 levels lag behind temperature rises, at an estimated period of 800years. Data shows that the period of this cycle is about 100,000 years, with many smaller, short term cycles within this larger cycle. The widely accepted theory for this is due to the Milankovitch cycles which cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons.

The net effect of this is warming of the oceans, which as we know means that the solubility of CO2 in the oceans falls and the product of this is more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. This results in an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which again has a net effect of enhancing the warming.

From a world store of CO2, the oceans contain approx 40,000 GT of suspended carbon, land biomass has approx 4000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce.

No one disagrees that CO2 has an effect on temperature, no one disagrees with climate change, but historically we have seen huge extremes in natural cycles which can account for what we are seeing today. I like many think that there are far bigger influences that impact our planet than man made CO2 output. All we have is the data we are presented with, and at the moment people are interpreting it in different ways. Certainly when you look at the cycle period of 100,000 years we are but a mere dot on that timeline.

The widely accepted theory for this is due to the Milankovitch cycles which cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons.

Thats not proven its a theory, not proven. Prove it, proove it, proove it

Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it Prove it, proove it, proove it

runs off to the funny farm screaming...............................

anagallis_arvensis - but you have just highlighted my point. I am not screaming at you or telling you that you are wrong, i have just put forward an alternative widely accepted theory. This is my point all along.

Why is it so hard to accept that?

hainey, if humans contribute so little CO2 to the atmosphere, are you saying that the increase from pre-industrial (in 1850 say 280ppm) to current (say 380ppm IIRC) is not due to man?

You didn't answer the previous question about what would constitute 'proof' of a link between the increasing concentrations of CO2 and recent and future temperature rises.

Cause Effect. what factor / factors are currently causing the warming? Are you suggesting that the ammount of sun hitting the earth has recently changed?
How is your above post relevent when the co2 level rise and the temperature rise coincide? To fit your theory the global warming should have occoured in the 1200's or are you arguing that there has been no rise in atmospheric co2 in the last 100 years?
Who widely accepts the Milankovitch cycles account fot this pattern?
By the way the bit where you give your qualification does not appear in your post.

I've got a 50m swimming badge if that helps.

Crankboy, I get the impression it doesn't matter what I say, you will ALWAYS disagree with me. 😉

I've got a 50m swimming badge if that helps

Might do if you think about the sea level rises that they were talking about at the Copenhagen summit.....oh, what was that? Over-simplified models been widely rubbished. Oh, ok. 😉

OK, I've also got an MSc in atmospheric sciences and a PhD in gas phase kinetics if that helps.

I wouldn't always disagree with everyhing you say but you do tend to make it easier by being either wrong or at least inaccurate about many things 😉

From a world store of CO2, the oceans contain approx 40,000 GT of suspended carbon, land biomass has approx 4000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce.

So, you say that temp rises cause CO2 to come out of solution in oceans and this is massive compared to that produced by humans, but you dont say how much moves out.

I like many think that there are far bigger influences that impact our planet than man made CO2 output.

WHat are they.

The reason why I scream is that you talk bollocks and seem to have very little idea what your talking about.

I've also got an MSc in atmospheric sciences and a PhD in gas phase kinetics if that helps.

Hang on.....i've got a medal here for you somewhere...

I thank you...

[img] [/img]

pretty graphs but how are they relevant, the biosphere has changed so much since then.

handy it stops at 1950 when the correlation starts breaking down.

The summary of the article from which that graph was taken:

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacial–interglacial cycles. The succession of changes through each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable bounds. Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. [b]Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.[/b]

late to this one but can someone tell me if i'm right on this -

global warming is the wrong term, it's climate change. rising co2 means a warmer planet on average, this can change weather patterns and this means the UK may get colder and more extreme weather, however overall the world average temp is rising.

this is my understanding, pls let me know if that's 'right' as it'll stop me having to bite my tongue when 'bloke down the pub' or 'local cabbie' say that globakl warming is bollocks and use the uk snowfall as evidence )

also, if we do produce tiny amounts of co2 compared to what's in the atmosphere, but the percentage change doesn't need to be very great to cause changes to the weather patterns and overall temp? right or not?

all in all though, whether you believe in global warming or not and aside from all the carbon ofsetting, solar flares and similar associated distractions / reasons etc, polluting the world with big cars, not recycling and excessive consumption is unacceptable. there's no debating that bit imo. saying "global warming is not true beacause of blah blah" to justify not caring about your impact on the planet is something i can't tolerate - it has nothing to do with the climate debate and everything to do with simply respecting the world we live in. (man)

there was a study about 15 years ago stating that if the Hudson did not thaw, then the northern hemisphere would be in a new iceage within 5 years. The cause of this would be too much fresh water (polar ice melt) that would pivot the change. This would reduce flow of Mississipi and alter the flow pattern in the gulf of Mexico, which in turn would shut off the supply of warm surface water to the gulf stream, changing the UK climate to something more continental at our Lattitude. Ooops More snow! Glaciers down to Watford, and the Channel would be a trickle of a stream running out the the Atlantic, now beyond the French Coast.

Don't you just love hypotheticals.

Oceanologists don't exist, who ever it was at the beginning of the thread! We're Oceanographers!

I believe one of the biggest causes is cyclists buying lots of exotic bicycles from the other side of the world
They then put them in a car & drive many hundreds of miles to Northern Scotland - when they get there, they get out the patio heaters & space heaters to try to heat up the outdoors a bit. They then wait till it gets dark before powering up loads of very bright lights & riding around in circles for a few hours.
After this they indulge in a bit more fresh air warming before driving their bicycles many hundreds of miles back home again

or something like that

Hainey, nice graph thanks.It does raise two points though:
1) It seems to prove that if you measure in units of 1 on one axis with a range of 14 and units of 10000 on the other with a range of 400 000 you get lots of spikes. If you were to use a more manageable ratio for units of temp to time years you get a lot gentler slope (admittedly the graph would be huge but to look at current trends you could extract the last two hundred years) then put in current figures for global temp and you will see a rise that does not fit the pattern predicted by the ice core samples.
2)Vostic is in The East Antarctica so, even if the cores supported your argument which the summary quoted by anagallis_arvensis suggests they don't, you should take care before debunking what appears to be accepted science based on one data set from a single location which is a climatically extreme region.

james-o yes you are right, spot on.

all in all though, whether you believe in global warming or not and aside from all the carbon ofsetting, solar flares and similar associated distractions / reasons etc, polluting the world with big cars, not recycling and excessive consumption is unacceptable. there's no debating that bit imo. saying "global warming is not true beacause of blah blah" to justify not caring about your impact on the planet is something i can't tolerate - it has nothing to do with the climate debate and everything to do with simply respecting the world we live in. (man)

Completly agree.

hainey i believe we are in agreement and therefore you are wrong.See below for my working out:

hainey "Crankboy, I get the impression it doesn't matter what I say, you will ALWAYS disagree with me."
crankboy "james-o yes you are right, spot on. "
hainey re james-o "Completly agree. "
QED

If we are in agreement then yes you are wrong. 😉

Z11,

I'm guessing you've decided to re-enter the debate because someone has actually said something sensible for once.

Clearly there are some people on here (not me BTW) with a proper science background.

However, one point that I think adds a tremendous amount of credibility to the warnings about climate change is that over time the science seems to be predicting [i]consistently[/i] worstening effects due to CO2.

As a non-expert who relies on what the scientists tell us I assume that over time that climate models that are being developed will improve. Additional factors will be included in later models. Existing elements will be refined as more data (albeit proxy data) becomes available. And yet the predictions of the models regarding the effects of climate change always seem to move in the same direction.

In other words, as more and more of the "natural" factors that hainey keeps banging on about are accounted for, scientists become more concerned about the CO2 effect.

Why do you think that is?

To expand your stilton experiment further. Suppose one dairy worker says "hey this Stilton isn't as good as the last batch, lets test all the goats for turpentine poisoning then exclude any turpentine tainted goats from future cheese making" Then they make some more cheese.

well the IPCC has give a rating for the forcing efefct and i agree Z-11 Does make sensible points.
Hainey
In your explanation citing the Milankovitch cycle as an explanation you do realise you are predicting the future based on a past/known events now you previously have slated models

It doesn't matter what predictions computers make on the next 10, 50 or 100 years, they are just that, predictions based on what we know today.

james-o,

I can't tell you if you are right, but I agree with everything you've said.

To expand your stilton experiment further. Suppose one dairy worker says "hey this Stilton isn't as good as the last batch, lets test all the goats for turpentine poisoning then exclude any turpentine tainted goats from future cheese making" Then they make some more cheese.

There is no need to test all the goats, one single rogue goat could not effect the overall validity of the cheese taste tests, the science is settled, you're a cheese taste test denier, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that theres nothing wrong with the cheese 😀

However, one point that I think adds a tremendous amount of credibility to the warnings about climate change is that over time the science seems to be predicting consistently worstening effects due to CO2.

As a non-expert who relies on what the scientists tell us I assume that over time that climate models that are being developed will improve. Additional factors will be included in later models. Existing elements will be refined as more data (albeit proxy data) becomes available. And yet the predictions of the models regarding the effects of climate change always seem to move in the same direction.

OK, I'll offer you a parallel here, In the late 1980's we were warned about the massive time bomb of VCJD deaths about to hit us, (total so far about 200 with a downward trend) Then we had the huge death toll from SARS, then bird Flu was going to kill 50-750,000 people (nobody in the UK actually died) then last year Swine flu - I can recall the governments chief scientist telling us that we could have upwards of 65,000 deaths, that people doubting the vaccination programme were extremists, and we spent whats believed to be several hundred million quid on vaccines to cover the whole population - actual death toll about 200.

The predictions of the models always seem to move in the same direction, These are genuine experts analysing the data and potential, and every time they come out with figures that bear so little reality to the actual outcome, that you have to wonder whats going on, either we've been REALLY lucky, or these guys are working on the precautionary principle to such an extent that we're wasting huge amounts of money and overmedicating our kids "just in case" - and maybe, just maybe, theres some vested interests in telling us that the apocalypse is nigh - research funding? big money pharma industries? who knows!

Warnings of annual pandemics get proved wrong in hindsight, all for the best, better to be safe than sorry, few hundred million quid wasted, lots of research grants handed out to tide us over till the next panic...

I don't think that theres a deliberate conspiracy, but theres certainly a repeated systematic level off doom-mongering thats turning into cry wolf! Are we entirely sure that AGW isn't the same?

None of those examples are a parallel to CO2.

Unfortunately they [b]are[/b] all examples of scientists making predictions (although I dare say at the time all the scientists talked about probabilities that were then ignored by the media) that were later shown to be overly pessimistic. But that doesn't mean that all scientific predictions are overly pessimistic (although undoubtedly some people are happy to believe that because some dire predictions haven't come to pass then none ever will).

The reason that none of your examples are relevant to the CO2 modeling is that they are all concerned with new and unknown medical effects taking place over a short space of time.

Modeling the effects of CO2 is a different kettle of fish (cheese). Unlike a new flue virus (say) we have a relatively better understanding of what CO2 in the atmosphere does and we also know that the amount of CO2 that we are releasing into the atmosphere will change in a fairly predictable way according to the amount of hydrocarbons we burn, and we can see the effects happening over a relatively long period of time.

Of course the difficulty is that other factors also affect CO2 in the atmosphere (again, unlike your examples - You can test to see which people are affected by which virus fairly easily)

Maybe a better comparison would be of predictions made about ozone in the atmosphere, or acid rain.

BTW I don't think you've really answered my question, which I think deserves some more thought.

Ignore that last post.

I tried to edit it but it took too long and I couldn't re-post.

I will repost my (hopefully) improved version below.

None of those examples are a parallel to CO2.

Unfortunately they [b]are[/b] all examples of scientists making predictions (although I dare say at the time all the scientists talked about probabilities that were then ignored by the media) that were later shown to be overly pessimistic. But that doesn't mean that all scientific predictions are overly pessimistic (although undoubtedly some people are happy to believe that because some dire predictions haven't come to pass then none ever will).

The reason that none of your examples are relevant to the CO2 modeling is that they are all concerned with new and unknown medical effects taking place over a short space of time.

Modeling the effects of CO2 is a different kettle of fish (cheese). Unlike a new flue virus (say) we have a relatively better understanding of what CO2 in the atmosphere does and we also know that the amount of CO2 that we are releasing into the atmosphere will change in a fairly predictable way according to the amount of hydrocarbons we burn, and we can see the effects happening over a relatively long period of time.

Of course the difficulty is that other factors also affect CO2 in the atmosphere. (again, this is not like your examples - with CO2 we have to slowly account for all of the other mechanisms as our understanding develops and the predicted outcomes change slowly ([b]so far in one direction[/b]) - with viruses you have a potential range of consequences and to start with and you have to lay out the full range of consequences (which may range from not much to armageddon (which the press interprets as armageddon!)), before pretty soon being able to see how that specific virus is acting and hopefully quickly narrow the range of options (which the press interprets as "you were wrong!"))

Maybe a better comparison would be of predictions made about ozone in the atmosphere, or acid rain.

BTW I don't think you've really answered my question, which I think deserves some more thought.

BBTW I think there will be a much more serious global flue pandemic at some point.

last year Swine flu - I can recall the governments chief scientist telling us that we could have upwards of 65,000 deaths, that people doubting the vaccination programme were extremists, and we spent whats believed to be several hundred million quid on vaccines to cover the whole population - actual death toll about 200.

So they said that in the worst case, with a completely un-vaccinated population, lots of people could die. Then they vaccinated all the vulnerable people in the population, and hardly anyone died.

So maybe the vaccine program worked? Or maybe the disease was actually pretty harmless? Or maybe it was something in between the two. How can you know that vaccinating a load of people was a waste of time, just based on the evidence that all these vaccinated people didn't die - we've gone and made them immune to it for goodness sake.

Joe

Thank you Joe.

But lets not start an argument about Swine flue Z11 (or anyone else). Lets keep going on AGW.

Well Joe - we could look at the control, how many people died in the countries that didn't vaccinate, is there a massive disparity in deaths between countries that did and didn't vaccinate. The beauty of hindsight! Of course with AGW, its a global issue over huge timescales, which means that unlike the flu pandemics, it will be a hundred years before we get to analyse the efficacy of our actions or the validity of the predictions - clever eh!

The point stands, these were valid scientifically modelled predictions by eminent scientist based on factual historical data from previous pandemics! Not just flu, look at the data for VariantCJD.

Will there be a drastic terrible disease in the future that kills hundreds of thousands? almost certainly!
Will it be the next virus round the corner? probably not!

Is there a vested interest in either the scientific research or pharma development community to run around shouting 'the sky is falling in' - theres a constant non-deliberate undertone that means that people in that research community will always produce drastic conclusions - in the same sensationalist way as the tabloid press works, doom and gloom sells papers and builds careers, theres no benefit in publishing a scientific paper saying "well, we looked at the data, and we don't know" - theres no research grants in saying "predictions are useless"

And yet the predictions of the models regarding the effects of _______ always seem to move in the same direction.

Fill the blank, it could read anything from influenza to GM foods!

I say this as someone who worked in pharma research for most of my adult life, you rapidly learn to become sceptical of the science, look at the medicalisation of common issues, "female sexual dysfunction? here take our new pill!" - This isn't to say that the science is invalid, its good science based on valid data, but the driving force, the undercurrent of the work, carries an inherent bias to find problems which need solving.

Im a hundred years, will we paraphrase Joe's comments above

So maybe the [s]vaccine[/s] geoengineering program worked? Or maybe the [s]disease[/s] warming was actually pretty harmless? Or maybe it was something in between the two. How can you know that [s]vaccinating a load of people[/s] the billions of pounds spent on geoengineering projects was a waste of time, just based on the evidence that all these [s]vaccinated[/s] people didn't die - we've gone and made them immune to it for goodness sake.

Of course, unlike the vaccination programmes, when we get to that point, we have no longer got a control to compare with!

As I've said on here before - there IS a risk of us getting this wrong:

reigning in pollution and consumption is clearly a good thing, however for a whole variety of reasons that have nothing to do with CO2 and climate change. I think its 100% impossible that we can prevent climate change itself, we may instead reduce its to some extent - however we can do a huge amount to mitigate the effects of something outside our power, and rather than standing like Canute holding back an advancing tide, we need to look at what we do to cope with it, this may involve mass migration and/or huge programmes of civil engineering and agricultural infrastructure, which would be a better place to concentrate our technological efforts and limited resource than carbon sequestration and biofuels.

I also think there are far more pressing and immediate problems than possible future climate change for huge swathes of the worlds population - famine, disease, poverty, oppression and conflict, Perhaps we should look at sorting out some of these problems before worrying about climate change, its a very bourgeois and comfortable position to be in that the biggest threat we can envisage is the chance that it will get warmer, when there are millions (billions?) of people worrying whether they will have enough to feed their children tomorrow.

ozone, acid rain?

Z11

Another area where your examples don't hold up is motive. You made it pretty clear that you think flu might get talked up because of commercial pressures from drug companies.

Where's the commercial interest in climate change? Why wouldn't it be in someone's interest to show that climate change is nothing to worry about. I'm sure the global industrial complex would be happy about that.

But they don't back research to explain climate change another way. They back organisations to try and rubbish the existing science.

rprt - no, you miss what I'm saying, I don't think that the driver is pressure from the drug companies - its the very essence of research to identify a problem and solve it, scientists naturally focus their work on problems rather than "not a problem" - its entirely paved in good intentions.

As for the global industrial complex - have you seen how much money is going to be made by a certain large steel company closing their factory in the UK, opening another one in india with the same CO2 output, and then selling all the european carbon credits that they were gifted for the Teeside Chorus factory on the open market?

As for backing organisations to rubbish the existing science - you have to apply the level playing field to organisations like Greenpeace, a clearly biased multi million pound global organisation, who's jobs depend entirely on the level of funding they can attract to tell us how we're all doomed - and how many other fake charities and research organisations? most of which get money from the climate change research budget - would the people at CRU have jobs if climate change was not 'the biggest threat facing humanity'?

Its not deliberate, its entirely paved with good intentions, but theres certainly a significant risk of bias creeping in! Don't forget, that anyone who doubts the science is told that the science is settled, theres an overwhelming consensus, look at the CRU emails, trying to rubbish and suppress papers and scientists that don't agree, and limit access to the raw data to people who are 'on message' - its a self licking ice cream cone, the science perpetuates itself - follow the money!

Interesting that your assertions in no way correspond to the graphs you post to support your arguments hainey. You state that man has only contributed 6GT (source please) and yet we are currently above the highest levels seen during recent natural cycles as recorded in ice cores.

[img] [/img]

follow the money!

We have an economy completely based on the exploitation of oil, gas and coal.

The money in the oil business dwarfs the money available in carbon credits and the like - and yet even the oil companies see the writing on the wall.

Look at oil company advertising - they are all telling us how green they are and that they are moving into renewables, whilst at the same time funding climate denial websites.

If they though there was a problem with the science they'd be funding genuine science to develop alternative explanations and running adverts telling us not to worry.

Ozone.. Acid rain...

We took action.. It got sorted! If we hadn't been told about the risks and possible worst case outcomes we wouldn't have done anything and the predictions may very well have turned out.

Interesting that your assertions in no way correspond to the graphs you post to support your arguments hainey.

He doesnt do science and hasnt responded in any way to any of the points put to him. Even the paper he lifted the graph from doesnt support his view, the mans deluded.

LOL.

You have already agreed with me that it is not possible to conclude that climate change is due to man, and yet you are still trying to argue it.

You asked to see natural cycles because apparently they didn't exist - i showed you them.

Please show me evidence of climate change due to man.

Oh you can't.

Are you really that arrogant?

If you read all my posts i have never said that is definitly down to natural cycles or that its definitly not due to man. I have said that there is no conclusion in either way and the original point with all this is that we are not tackling the main contributors instead we are attacked the easy targets. There is NO consistency (like with the majority of the computer models).

could you go back and address the points I raised from your somewhat shoddy interpretation of a few statistics you posted.

oh and by the way your used of "conclude" is wrong many people have concluded that climate change is man made, they just are not able to prove it.

I don't have time to read through, could you summarise your conflicting arguments for me please?

Many people have concluded the opposite too.

Round and round we go!

I tell you what i will help you out:

Many scientists have concluded that the current climate change is due to man

Many scientists have concluded that the current climate change is in keeping with natural cycles we have seen before

No one can prove it either way.

It REALLY is that simple.

erm ok, your wrong but ok.

So what does "natural" mean?

Many people have concluded the opposite too.

Hainey.. There are many many many times more qualified scientists 'concluding' that the weight of evidence points towards man made GW than there are actual qualified scientists 'concluding' the opposite.

There is no proof either way. There is however LOTS of evidence for MGW and considerably LESS against. That's why those that understand what they are talking about use carefully considered language like 'conclusion' and 'weight of evidence'.

Your 'opinion' however is entirely your own and not up for debate.

Why the hell am I still engaging you?

Duh!.. 🙂

hainey,

You haven't shown us how natural cycles explain [b]current [/b]CO2 levels and climate change.

You've shown us that there are natural cycles of warming and CO2 levels, but you gloss over the fact that they do NOT explain [b]current[/b] trends.

Its REALLY that simple.

There are many many many times more qualified scientists 'concluding' that the weight of evidence points towards man made GW than there are actual qualified scientists 'concluding' the opposite.

Wrong.

Where is your evidence for this?

What about those many many scientists who have been exposed for essentially tailoring their research to exagerate their findings? What are their incentives for this?

At the moment, in the current political climate, there is NO incentive for coming forward and saying that climate change is not due to man.

Your current trends are over what, a 150 year period? Its too short a time to reach any conclusion in comparison to 100,000 year periodic cycles.

its a conspiracy man.........

What does "natural" mean?

Its too short a time to reach any conclusion in comparison to 100,000 year periodic cycles.

Why, explain this to me?

Well, have you got evidence and data to back up that what we are seeing now hasn't happened before? How do you know that the CO2 levels over this incredibly short period of time in the grand scheme of things aren't just tiny little spikes? Are we at the top of the curve and over the next 50000 years about to head back down again.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that you can't categorically say you are right and hence why we are going round and round in circles.

There are many many many times more qualified scientists 'concluding' that the weight of evidence points towards man made GW than there are actual qualified scientists 'concluding' the opposite.
Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Consensus
Right!

You muppet! 🙂

can you explain what natural means and then what a natural cycle is?

Mark - wrong.

AA - read previous posts and graph.

I was trying to think of [relatively] modern instances of where the wider opinion of scientists have got something big wrong

I can only think of the long held belief that Pitdown man was the missing link

any others?

I am saying that you can't categorically say you are right and hence why we are going round and round in circles.

Ah the "perfection fallacy". One of my favourite logical fallacies that one. Nothing in science can be proven to that extent, it doesn't make it wrong. For example, Newtons laws of motion aren't 100% correct as they don't work for at very high velocities. Should we now stop using the laws that he discovered inspite of the fact that they describe the world we around us very very well?

Nothing in science is ever really 100% and will never be no matter how much you may wish it to be.

Hainey... I've given you a reference to my interpretation.. Can you supply one to support your opinion?

🙂

hainey,

Your posts are becoming more and more pointless. Any number of people on here are prepared to debate with you in a rational (non hysterical - as you keep accusing all and sundry of being) way, but you just don't engage do you?

One minute you say that natural cycles explain everything and that the data you trust comes from ice core samples. The next minute you say that the data might be all wrong. We really are back to the moon/cheese argument.

You have to decide what evidence you do trust.

I would be quite interested to know what would it take to convince you that there is a link between CO2 and climate change?

Just as a matter of interest, do you think there might be a link between smoking and lung-cancer?

I've read your previous posts and looked at your graphs (which were interpreted differently by those who drew then). At no point do you explain what natural means or describe what a natural cycle is.

Wikipedia? - Yes good accurate source! 😯

wikipedia? whats that got to do with anything?

Smoking and Lung Cancer - yes

Moon made of cheese - no

Well mark posted a link to Wikipedia

oh I see, well, the IPCC believe climate change is man made, every national scientific body that has made its position clear has agreed with it. Very few in comparison dont agree, that is fact.

Z11 very interesting posts, made me have a good think. Thanks.

[i]I don't have time to read through[/i] - Ignorance is bliss eh Hainey. Why read and think when you can demonstrate your ignorance so effectively with no effort at all. Wikipedia might be agood starting point for someone with concentration difficulties and limited time that needs a simply written synopsis. Have you noticed you're the only one with LOL after your posts?

Edukator - yawn.

I am sure you have all read this published by the Biogeography department at the University of London:

“Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: 'Is climate changing and in what direction?' 'Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?' And: 'Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?' The most fundamental question is: 'Can humans manipulate climate predictably?' Or, more scientifically: 'Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?' The answer is 'No'. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something.

Smoking and Lung Cancer - yes

Moon made of cheese - no

Right, me too. But what made you accept that one of these things is true and the other not, when we can't PROVE (in your terms) either of them?

Since you aren't ever going to produce references to support yourself I'll keep going..

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

Never mind wikipedia.. (but never the less scroll down the wiki article and start doing some actual reading of the hundreds of references to the data and articles that make up the context of the wikipedia entry).. this link above is just one.. But it is a shining example of how MGW deniers rank waaaaay higher up the league table of incompetent data analysers than any of the MGW supporters do. Crikey.. even oil companies accept the fact that MGW is the more likely reality.

Of course, the entire argument over natural/unnatural cycles, CO2 levels, unprecedented changes in temperature, graphs, diagrams, pie charts, scientific consensus etc. remains completely irrelevant if the data on which the calculations are founded is shite!

if the data is bollocks, then you're all arguing over angels on a pinhead, and I've not seen anyone challenge my assertions that the cheese you're all gobbling up may very well be tainted! 😀

Rightplace:

The money in the oil business dwarfs the money available in carbon credits and the like - and yet even the oil companies see the writing on the wall.

Look at oil company advertising - they are all telling us how green they are and that they are moving into renewables...

And you think it would not be in oil companies interests to promote oil as a valuable resource thats running out? Seen the oil prices over the last couple of years? valuable resource, low supply, more economic engines, price per barrel goes up.

The answer to the first questions is Yes and the other question are posed in such a way that the only answer can be no Hainey.

Cut down tropical forest and you will reduce humidity. Predictable change in response to human intervention.

If you can think of a linear predictable change in any system good luck to you - I challenge you to think of one - you'll fail, even the steel spring in your fork has an elastic limit and failure point. However, lots of systems including climatic response are predictable, it's just that the system does not respond in a linear manner.

Engage your brain on the rare occasions you take the trouble to read stuff Hainey, it doesn't take a genius to sort the wheat from the chaff and the science from the pseudo science and propaganda.