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

Junkyard - how do we validate, calibrate and interpret the patchy atmospheric/ocean data?

Yep, we compare it with the most complete records we've got - the surface record.

how do we calibrate and interpret the satellites?

Yep, you guessed it!

House of cards!

Z11 - Now you are talking complete crap.

You think that satelites, are calibrated against the historical data set?

How would that work then?

Surely they would be callibrated in real time against very carefully made measurements taken by the institutions that launch them?

gosh this is fun Hainey.

The point of my last post was intended to be simple: you can't say future predictions are rubish if they are based on models and then use data based on models of past climate as sound evidence to contadict the predictions about the future . The use of models is either a good tool or a bad one . If you can actually show a defect it a particular model that is a different argument, which you have yet to advance.

I'm not actually challenging the historic data you have refered to however i do challence the conclusions you and you alone draw from it. You have the conclusion from the source of your graph which contradicts your interpretation of the graph.

I do actually enjoy learning from history so far I have learnt that you do not deal with any direct question . Please for the sake of my sanity ,the quailfied scientists who drew up the ice core data think man made climate change is an issue.The geologists think the world orbiting the sun and spinning on it's axis erratically is a cool theory but does not fit all the sedimentary data available, the climentologists think that erratic cycle is a good theory and does account for cyclical heating and cooling,but the changes are gradual, so that "natural cycle" does not account for current climate change.
You apear to suggest different interpretations of this historic data , what is your qualification? I ask only because your proposition contradicts that of those whose qualifications are known. If the area of dispute is really the interpretaion of data then i think that qualifications are relevant when one asks oneself whose interpretation is likely to be best.

I doff my cap in your general direction super response.

Z11 - Now you are talking complete crap. You think that satelites, are calibrated against the historical data set

Where the hell did I say historical? I said the most [b]complete[/b] data set!

The satellite baseline point is calibrated by comparison between radiosonde measurements, which produces a tropospheric temperature calculation, this is then analysed into usable data by comparison with surface records.

As we only have approx 30 years worth of satellite data, and prior to that a small set of atmospheric records taken by weather balloons in a limited number of locations. to draw any conclusions for more than 30 years, you have to link that data against surface records, in the same way that the ice core proxy data has to be calibrated against the surface record.

Crankboy:

the quailfied scientists who drew up the ice core data think man made climate change is an issue.

Serious question, did they think that before they analysed the data?

By that I mean, was the conclusion drawn from analysing the data, or did the data support the thesis - its an important scientific distinction!

brrr cold today. must be this 'global warming' rubbish I hear about of the tv.

Now you are talking unintelligable complete crap.

If you can't beat them with brilliance....

Of course it's not the [b]complete[/b] data set.

Satellite calibration is done V actual measurements taken at the time the satelite measurements are taken.

Or in [url= http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/ ]this case[/url] V an on-board stable calibration target.

Again, read the words - I said

the most complete data set

the complete data set.

I do try and choose my words carefully!

The on-board calibration target still has to be cross referenced with a baseline, otherwise you're left with pretty much useless set of 30 years worth of data that bears no relevance to analysis of global temperature changes over any period longer than the satellite record.

As your own link says:

For instance, since there have been ten successive satellites, most of which had to be calibrated to the one before it with some non-zero error, there is the possibility of a small ‘random walk’ component to the 30+ year data record.

zulu eleven "Serious question, did they think that before they analyised the data?" fair point 'experimenter bias' is always a consideration the hainey graph appears to date to 1999 so i can't really answer your question easily , but given the apparent unanimity of scientific opinion (97% of specialists in the field 87% of scientists in other areas) it may be fair to assume some expectation as to out come on their part . On the other hand at the time the administration in the USA and the oil company's were massively anti man made climate change and funding a knocking campaign so one would imagine the figures and conclusions would have been debunked if 'experimenter bias' had tainted them. British Antarctic Survey (2004, June 11) which deals with the worlds oldest ice core again seems to accept global warming as man made, so we end up either with nearly all scientists are wrong and the Russians the media and the man down the pub are right or maybe there's something in these worries after all. ("the Russians" is a spurious reference to climategate 2)

dont worry I have the graph ready if they really mention the russian cherry picking data lie.

Z-11 much of what you say, measuring error and expectation can be labelled against most/all of science. I doubt anyone really investigates things they dont believe at all - moon cheese will have few studies for example.
However I doubt someone one day said I know lets come up with global warming now lets start a conspiracy and start forging evidence. There would have been a starting point when climatologists were just gathering data to see where it led. Once it suggested certain things we investigated them - this seems an entirely sensible approach unless you suggest we just pull out random hypothesis[what is the plural?} and just test them. I mean the great haderon collidor has not been built just to see what will happen but that does not mean they will forge the data for the higgson-boson particle .....they are scientists not Tony Blair with a dossier.

Z11

so, by their own admission, the data calibration is unreliable with an unascertained level of error.

You're almost stooping the the hainiesque "prove it" level of argument

I wonder why they bothered launching another nine satellites after the first one? Maybe they just didn't spot the flaw you did in their thinking and they thought that measurements with "an unascertained level of error" might still be worth something? That was a few billion wasted then wasn't it?

I see what you mean now by complete data set. You mean geographically widespread? Does that matter? Presumably nowadays we can take pretty accurate temperature measurements without making errors such as painting the sensor box with the wrong sort of paint? In which case, how many calibration points are needed?

The use of models is either a good tool or a bad one.

You can't determine either way until you have proven the model. So at the moment it is just a prediction right?

If you can actually show a defect it a particular model that is a different argument, which you have yet to advance.

I haven't professed to any defects in models, just to what i stated above. The issue i have is that scientists could, and unfortunately have, manipulated data to swing data to suit their own needs.

I'm not actually challenging the historic data you have refered to however i do challence the conclusions you and you alone draw from it. You have the conclusion from the source of your graph which contradicts your interpretation of the graph.

Not true, i have merely posted a graph which in many peoples opinion shows a cyclic trend over a historic period. The conclusions i draw are shared by many more in the scientific community

Please for the sake of my sanity , the quailfied scientists who drew up the ice core data think man made climate change is an issue.

Wrong, some do, some don't.

The geologists think the world orbiting the sun and spinning on it's axis erratically is a cool theory but does not fit all the sedimentary data available

Wrong, some do, some don't

What is your qualification?

As discussed previously, not important, a lot of people have professed to be more knowledgeable than me, they could be right, the could be wrong, or they could be 16 year old nigerean scammers for all i know.

I ask only because your proposition contradicts that of those whose qualifications are known.

Wrong, it does for some, doesn't for others.

If the area of dispute is really the interpretaion of data then i think that qualifications are relevant when one asks oneself whose interpretation is likely to be best.

I have never said that i am right, that is the problem you have. Unfortunately i have dared to question the greater good and that is unacceptable. Like a lot of religion i need to have it rammed down my throat until i become a believer!

Why do you struggle to debate in a manner other than screaming down other peoples opinion? Its sad.

Junkyard, glad you have found a friend to play with!! 😉

Rightplace - sure, we can make very accurate measurements now - but it remains very difficult to compare that data [i]reliably[/i] with older, less accurate data - when we're looking at trends over a couple of centuries worth of data, we have to consider the serious risk that the level of error exceeds the level of variance in the global temperature anomaly.

We can probably say that the records for the past twenty, maybe thirty years of satellite data are fairly accurate, but by their own admission not entirely.

[img] [/img]

Nte that that only goes back to 1979 - It does not attempt a comparison with the historical record, this is pure satellite data - to connect the two, you'd have to try and cross reference with a baseline from the land record:

So lets compare that with the surface record:

[img] [/img] or

[img] [/img]

Now, just at a cursory glance, I'd say that indicates that the pure satellite data indicates a much lower curve than the surface record!

*I'd call this a significant issue - the two sets of entirely separate data don't appear to indicate the same level of drastic temperature change*

Of the available data sets, I'd say the *pure* satellite data is the one that I'd prefer to rely on, purely due to the fact that I'm aware of known issues with the correction logarithms applied to raw data from surface stations!

and to make it really meaningful, we'd need to compare the 30 years of accurate satellite data with the historical proxy data, validated against the surface record:

[img] [/img]

Basically - does the last 30 years of satellite data tell us anything

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend

Here we are - two data sets plotted against each other - surface and ocean data versus satellite only records.

I've just managed to reduce global warming over the past 30 years by about a third! That indicates that theres a significant warming bias in the surface record over the past three decades.

Not true, i have merely posted a graph which in many peoples opinion shows a cyclic trend over a historic period. The conclusions i draw are shared by many more in the scientific community

Junkyard, glad you have found a friend to play with!!

Z-11 If you want to compare graphs you need to standardise the axis there areconly two graphs – the first two where any axis scale is the same – If you want to post up comparison graphs can they actual use the same scale?

Now, just at a cursory glance, I'd say that indicates that the pure satellite data indicates a much lower curve than the surface record!

the difference between satellitte measures and actual sea thermometer measures is is also well documeneted

The data used here is based on analysis of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) satellite images in the thermal infrared channel available as grey scale photographs with 4 kilometre pixels. These are converted to temperatures using a calibration scale. A crucial feature of the analysis is that it is done by a human observer who selects regions which appear to be completely cloud-free (J. Clarke, NOAA, personal communication). This is critical, because the presence of clouds in the pixel contaminates the sea surface temperature signal with the lower values characteristic of cloud tops. Large clouds, such as those associated with weather fronts, are readily visible in the images and avoided, however the major problem is the possible presence of sub-pixel size clouds which cannot be seen in the images, but which are nevertheless capable of adding a spurious signal. This is especially a problem in the tropics, where clouds tend to be small. Human judgment is used to identify those pixels which are likely to be clear because their temperatures represent a consistent regional maximum background value. There is always a finite, but small, chance that all such pixels may be subject to hidden contamination from widely dispersed small clouds, which would tend to result in an underestimate of the true value

so we have human error and a technical reducing problem not present with an actual thermometer but it does allow us to better measure large areas such as the Pacific Ocean.

So global temperatures are rising at a higher rate on land than in the atmosphere?

When atmospheric CO2 is supposed to be the driver of the change...

😯

Your explanation of the difference between records does not explain why there are differential rates of warming, one is climbing faster than the other!

Edit - go and read these comparisons:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/a-comphrehensive-comparison-of-giss-and-uah-global-temperature-data/

If the surface temperature record is believed, the temperature anomaly is rising at a higher rate in some places than others.

The wood for the trees link plots the two sets of data perfectly one against the other!

Can you not see, that a [i]perfectly[/i] valid conclusion from that, would be that the "value added" land temperature record may be exhibiting some form of bias that is not evident in the satellite records!

1.The authors conclusion does not support your view does it?

I don't know, i haven't read the article, i lifted the graph directly from the web to highlight the cyclic nature that people were shouting for evidence of.

2. The scale for the graph is not large enough to include current levels of C02 is it?

No.

3. Current levels of C02 are at a 650,00 year high aren't they?

Maybe, maybe not, depends on the accuracy of the historical data which you don't believe. As eluded to before there is the potential that we are in a spike at the peak of a cycle.

4.The graph ended in 1950 and therfore it has no bearing on the current situations does it?

There you go again, not wanting to learn from the past. It has every bearing on today and the future. Plus if you think that 50years in a 450000 timeline is a good measure then you need to think again.

5.Is the cycle still a valid/credible explanation ?

Yes

6.If yes why?

Because the data set is used in building are predictions. Technically over the next 50,000 years or so we should be having a global cooling. Who are you to say that this won't happen? Seeing as it HAS happened in the past. I am not saying you are wrong, thats the mistake you are making, i am just asking why you think you are categorically right?

What is your prediction for the next 50,000 years?
What are you basing this on?
Why?

Glad you have managed to find some friends on the internet!!! 😉

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

hainey:i'm impressed that you are still playing but disapointed that you have not responded to the graph challenge post the ice core data with a decade based time line extend that to model current and future tempreture superimpose the available actual tempreture records and see if the reality matches the model extrapolated from the ice core. Short answer it doesn't there is a rapid and sudden spike which is why the people with qualifications are worried , and it's a scarry rapid planet changing spike which is why the people with out qualifications are desparate to latch on to any argument no matter how stale and discredited to undermine the scientists .
me: "Please for the sake of my sanity , the quailfied scientists who drew up the ice core data think man made climate change is an issue."

you:"Wrong, some do, some don't."
you: "don't know, i haven't read the article, i lifted the graph directly from the web to highlight the cyclic nature that people were shouting for evidence of."
PLEASE Name one qualified scientist who currently does not think man made climate change is an issue or who belives that the current tempreture rise is due to the natural cycle postulated from the ice core samples?By the way i was actually originally pointing out that the person whose graph you used does not think it shows what you cliam it shows.

me "The geologists think the world orbiting the sun and spinning on it's axis erratically is a cool theory but does not fit all the sedimentary data available"

you"Wrong, some do, some don't"

PLEASE name one geologist who argues that the Milankovitch cycles fit all the sedimentary data currently available.

I'm not actually seeking to shout you down, it is in my intrests and every one else's best intrests for you to be right we can evolve or develop our way through one of the very gradual Milankovitch cycles but we are almost at catastophic tipping point on the Man made global warming model.

Crankboy, it may be a spike, yes, i agree with you, but similar spikes have been seen before, and yes according to ice core samples CO2 is slightly higher than historical highs, but why has the average temperature not increased more as a result, and why does the average temperature actually match those historical values?

In the past, historically, where man has had NO influence whatsoever, temperature of the planet has increased closely followed by CO2 levels. Then, it has dropped back down again. Why are you so closed off to thinking that this won't happen again?

but we are almost at catastophic tipping point on the Man made global warming model

or we are at the peak of cycle that we have seen before. Its impossible to tell.

hainey i think we are nearly there to your credit you moved from "historical ice core reccords are fact" to understanding that they are a model based on extrapolations from data (ie the thickness and composition of ice on an area that covers less than a sguare foot over a very long time) Now look at the time line on the graph you post see how it is compressed to enhance the aperance of the up's and downs ?(this is to make it easy to see links or mirrors between co2 and temp) place your tempreture measurment against a more natural unit of time for our current debate say decade instead of melennia, you previous Spikes vanish from the graph and become gentle rolling hills and valleys .But the current spike stands!! hence the worry.

We have released into the atmosphere co2 stored over melennia in coal oil and peat plus that stored over hundreds of years in trees, whilst destroying huge tracts of natural co2 scrubbers in the form of rain forest. We have done this in a sudden couple of hundred years do you honestly belive this would be free of imopact on the biosphere?

What's wrong with off-setting when it's based on sustainable development? If Google chooses to produce more power that it consumes using sustainable, renewable sources where's the problem? If a company plants trees to match it's paper consumption who loses? The only dodgy one is buying up rain forest as unless you buy all of it you will only influence where trees are cut down not how many.

Simmer a pan of water Hainey and measure the temperature - about 100°C depending on how high above sea level you live. Now cover the pan with a glass plate and watch what happens. The temperature doesn't change but the pan gets very stormy. {Play nice - Mod}

Natural systems incorporate natural buffers.

With luck a climate change provoked extreme weather event will destroy your home and leave you severely handicapped for life

Christ almighty are you 5?

Oh, and it shows that you know very little when you say i will need to wait 100 years to see the evidence!

[i]Oh, and it shows that you know complete F*CK all when you say i will need to wait 100 years to see the evidence! [/i]

Read again, I didn't say that. You're seeing some of the evidence now and will see a lot more if you live longer. You won't though, as even if you survive climatic change you'll get wiped out oil declines and the fabric of society breaks down.

Interesting that you should call on God. He'll have you too at the pearly gates. It's hell fire for you for destroying the nice planet God gave you. I'm safe as I don't need a God.

Don't feed the troll.

Pot - kettle - black. Besides I'm not hungry Hainey. There again a Hainey for lunch might be good.

Snow's really melting now

Does that mean I need to find another excuse for not going for a ride?

Snow's really melting now

Yep, and just think what all that mel****er is going to do to sea levels!

What's wrong with off-setting when it's based on sustainable development? If Google chooses to produce more power that it consumes using sustainable, renewable sources where's the problem? If a company plants trees to match it's paper consumption who loses? The only dodgy one is buying up rain forest as unless you buy all of it you will only influence where trees are cut down not how many.

By offsetting we were talking about offsetting schemes - not directly generating power

My main doubt with offsetting schemes is that it doesnt invoke any behavior change...and the best you can hope to get is neutral - e.g. no active reductions.

Hello Mr Mod. Will do.

It is a interesting point though that as flood waters rise higher and storms increase in strength and frequency some people refuse to believe that their own actions could be in way contributing. As 4X4s disappear under the rising water I can't help but rejoice in the poetic justice. Sadly the weather is not as selective in choosing its victimes as I would like.

Hainey, i watch debates like this with genuine interest;
(why do people with little or no interest in any other field of science feel the passion about AGCC? - the world is full of interesting scientific research, why pick this?)

which of the following statements would you disagree with:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2) human activity is increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3) tinkering with the climate might be a bad idea.

?

(i'm not trying to mock or patronise you - i wouldn't do that, i'm not very good at it)

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset ]Wikki definition of offset[/url]

Offsetting includes directly generating power. I produce more electricity than I consume, the excess offsets some of the carbon released due to my other activities such as buy bicycle components. If everybody offsets their carbon footprint by investment in alternative energies there will soon be no fossil fuel power stations and enough surplus electricity to make the electric car a less polluting alterantive (electric cars charged with fossil fuel generated electricity make no sense at all).

(why do people with little or no interest in any other field of science feel the passion about AGCC? - the world is full of interesting scientific research, why pick this?)

It is a subject very close to a lot of peoples hearts and also gets brought to almost everyones attention via the media. I for one have a great deal of interest in many different fields.

which of the following statements would you disagree with:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2) human activity is increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3) tinkering with the climate might be a bad idea.

1) - Yes, but its not mutually exclusive, you also need to consider Water vapour alongside it - its not that simple. Also, methane, whilst not as abundant as CO2 is a much worse gas.

2) - Humans are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

3) - If humans have the power to tinker with the climate then yes.

(i'm not trying to mock or patronise you - i wouldn't do that, i'm not very good at it)

- thankyou.

ZULU -11 quick googling re your source
Ok so you found one person to evidence your claim and you used a paper that was published, not in a peer reviwed scientific journal but in the economist and the only graph was described thus

Dr. Mörner was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research’s (INQUA) Commission on Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003). Its research proved that the catastrophic predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on computer models of the effects of global warming, are “nonsense.”

they tried nazis at Nuremberg didn't they

British Crown Peddles Hitler-Style Genocide- Shocking documentation of the Crown's calls for reducing world population by several billion people in the short term.

Since the Copenhagen summit, the British have launched a new global "strategy of tension," ranging from the physical assaults against Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Pope Benedict XVI, to terrorism worldwide.

[url= http://www.eirna.com/html/magazine/eirmage.htm ]magazine here[/url]
[url= http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/next_latest.html ]contents here[/url][url= http://www.eirna.com/html/magazine/eirmage.htm ]magazine here[/url]
[url= http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/latest.html ]british quote here from bonkers magazine[/url]

hainey i saw this and i thought of you it's from one of those scientist blokes he studies climate change and weather and stuff. He is a strong believer in man made climate change but The telegraph (Torygraph) and Daily Mail (Daily Hate) keep misrepresenting his research and saying it contradicts man made climate change.
"There are numerous newspapers, radio stations and television channels all trying to get our attention. Some overstate and some want to downplay the problem as a way to get that attention," he said. "We are trying to discuss in the media a highly complex issue. Nobody would discuss the problem of [Einstein's theory of] relativity in the media. But because we all experience the weather, we all believe that we can assess the global warming problem."
Mojib Latif, from Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany.

Hainey
As you have accepted that C02 is a greenhouse gas and that humans are emitting it.Were we doing so at the levels now at any time in the distant past ?
EDIT:Do you think that the evidence from the ozone hole suggests that we can tinker with the atmosphere bot in apositive and a negative way.That is CFC created it and by stopping there use the damage was reversed? Man can tinker surely that is a given?

Funny enough i never think of you.

Junkyard, as humans weren't around thousands of years ago, what was responsible for the CO2 rises then?

What was responsible for the temperature rise preceeding the CO2 increase?

What was responsible for the CO2 level decreasing?

If you want to cite a reference from that magazine as a refutation of the IPCC report then I wish you all the best convincing anyone of its validity. Very poor source indeed - that was only 10 mins googling to get that.
magazine here
contents heremagazine here
british quote here from bonkers magazine

I know we're veering off-topic here, but this article from this "Executive Intelligence Review" magazine-for-nutters is superb stuff:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2010/3701brit_follow_edward7.html

Jan. 2—As the New Year begins, there is an unmistakable pattern of British-provoked asymmetric warfare around the globe, particularly in the aftermath of the Monarchy's failure at the December 2009 Copenhagen conference on global warming. At the Commonwealth meeting in Trinidad & Tobago in November, Queen Elizabeth II stepped directly onto the world stage, to declare, on behalf of the British Monarchy, "We are in charge." But just weeks later, the British failed miserably in their attempt to use Copenhagen to strike a death blow against the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-states, and to depopulate the planet.

Since Copenhagen, the British have launched a new global "strategy of tensions," beginning with the physical assault against Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and then, against Pope Benedict XVI. A senior U.S. intelligence source warned that the targeting of Berlusconi and the Pope signaled a new round of British destabilizations against all of continental Europe. When London goes to war against continental Europe, it always starts with Italy, a U.S. intelligence source elaborated. Since the end of World War II, Italy has been the weak link on the continent. "Love him or hate him," the source explained, "Prime Minister Berlusconi has brought a degree of stability to Italian politics, that is unprecedented in the last half-century. The targeting of Berlusconi, followed by the assault upon the Pope, delivers an unmistakable message: Italy is in London's crosshairs."

Hainey,
I'm with Adam (ahwiles) here, as usual, we're living within a system and are actively changing the balance of that system through our actions. You seem to have a handle on the situation, so generally, what are you arguing? That the feedback systems within the environment are sufficient to compensate for us screwing about? Because as you state, we're changing it, no other way to look at it. (Changing the system, not climate, as the past 3 million posts show, there's plenty of ways to argue about that!)

:Do you think that the evidence from the ozone hole suggests that we can tinker with the atmosphere bot in apositive and a negative way.That is CFC created it and by stopping there use the damage was reversed? Man can tinker surely that is a given?

That is a different topic from what we are talking about. We are talking climate due to CO2, not CFCs.

You seem to have a handle on the situation, so generally, what are you arguing? That the feedback systems within the environment are sufficient to compensate for us screwing about?

To a certain extent yes, but as discussed there are a lot more factors than that.

Junkyard - regards Morner - I see that nobody has actually confronted his claims?

Easy enough to play the man, not the ball - [b]if[/b] his claims are accurate then its pretty damning - perhaps he was unable to get a paper published, maybe his claims don't stand up under scrutiny, or maybe they do and none of the journals were interested in publishing - after all, why would they publish, the science is already settled isn't it?

What I do know, is that given his background, his claims certainly deserve investigation!

I've reisisted for so long but cannot anymore.
Hainey, can you explain why you believe the minority view, when you clearly do not understand much about the science, or how science works and have seemingly not read any of the direct evidence to support your view (ingnoring that you seem to lack the skills to appraise it).
Now, I have lots of scientific training and have tinkered around the edges of some of the evidence but understand that I dont understand enough to decide for myself. So I do the cautious thing and go with the majority view. What evidence do you base your seemingly strong views on, why do yo think you understand or see more or know more than those who do the research. I just dont get it.

I think we all agree that natural things have affected climate in the past and will continue to do so in the future. I am not denying we have had climate change in the past
What we are actually discussing here is whether man is having an effect at the moment - ie non natural change- due to our use of fossil fuels and the effect of C02.

You accept that C02 is a greenhouse gas and therefore it affects temperature. You accept it is increasing due to human activity. Yet so say this is not having an effect.

but as discussed there are a lot more factors than that.

So forget the bloody graphs, the minutae and the piffling pedantic arguments. What EXACTLY are you arguing?

P.S. See Ahwiles for disclaimers regarding patronisation 🙂

Now, I have lots of scientific training .... So I do the cautious thing and go with the majority view.

😯

[img] [/img]

So I do the cautious thing and go with the majority view

So your a lemming essentially?

Why do you get so upset that i don't go with the majority?

I think we all agree that natural things have affected climate in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Agreed.

What we are actually discussing here is whether man is having an effect at the moment - ie non natural change- due to our use of fossil fuels and the effect of C02.

Yes, so at the moment how do you know that this isn't part of a natural cycle?

hindsight is a wonderful thing zulu but without it what do we do? What evidence do you have and why do you think its stronger?

Junkyard - regards Morner - I see that nobody has actually confronted his claims?

Did you miss this bit in my original post?

In 2004 the president of INQUA wrote that INQUA did not subscribe to Mörner's views on climate change

Why do you get so upset that i don't go with the majority?

I'm not upset just frustrated by your lack of logical reason and a complete lack of evidence.

Mock all you like but you always avoid the point

how do you know that this isn't part of a natural cycle?

Burning fossil fuels whilst deforesting the planet has never been part of previous natural cyles has it?

AA, what you want to do is to try and force your opinion on everyone else which is completly illogical seeing as you have stated that your opinion has defaulted to that of others.

Are you so arrogant to say that you are 100% right?

And if you are not 100% right then there is a chance you are wrong?

Burning fossil fuels whilst deforesting the planet has nver been part of previous natural ycles has it?

No

So

Where is your evidence that this is going to stop the cycle we know? Where is the evidence that over the next 50,000 years the CO2 and temperature won't return to their levels 50,000 years ago?

Z11,

You're becoming more prone to moving away from reasoned argument. What's with the flat earth cartoon? Do you think it helps explain something?

Hainey,

As you seem to be online maybe you could respond to one of my earlier posts that you missed out on first time round:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

AA, what you want to do is to try and force your opinion on everyone else which is completly illogical seeing as you have stated that your opinion has defaulted to that of others.

No I dont I just want to know if you can justify your position.

Are you so arrogant to say that you are 100% right?

Of course not, could be wrong thats science.

And if you are not 100% right then there is a chance you are wrong?

Of course there is, but what are the chances? do you have any idea of the science? Can you provide any evidence that backs your claims.

Where is your evidence that this is going to stop the cycle we know? Where is the evidence that over the next 50,000 years the CO2 and temperature won't return to their levels 50,000 years ago?

Fair enough hainey, feel free to ignore my well written poignant and strikingly devastating last post. But you're descending into fallacy. This latest quote confuses me even more. What on earth are you trying to say!?!?

I'm sure most people here are arguing from a standpoint of generations rather than aeons!

Chuff me

Can you provide any evidence that backs yours?

If you think that climate change can be accurately determined over a generation then you are sadly deluded.

theres a lot of evidence that shows that CO2 levels are at an unprecedented high, its in that paper you provided for us with the graph, there's also lots of basic science that shows that CO2 causes heat to be trapped. I cannot provide pdf's of any papers anymore as I dont have an ejournals password or SCI search password. But I have read the stuff before and know its out there.

If you think that climate change can be accurately determined over a generation then you are sadly deluded.

Few points, I didn't claim anything of the sort, generations has an s on the end. You still refuse to [b]tell[/b] [edit] me what point you're trying to make? Please address my previous post just so I can unclench my fists, it's making it really difficult to type.

🙂

hainey - Member
Burning fossil fuels whilst deforesting the planet has nver been part of previous natural ycles has it?
No

[i]Can you provide any evidence that backs yours? [/i]

How about answering easily understood questions rather than post another so vague it is unanswerable Hainey - rather like the questions asked by the sceptics you quote. Ask a daft enough question and you can be sure not to get an answer. On the other hand there are lots of very precise and complete question that require simple yes or no answers that are addressed to you by name but you keep ignoring Hainey. Yes you Hainey.

There are plenty of questions left unanswered, including:

What caused the cyclic temperature rise over the last 450,000 years?
Why did the temperature preceed a CO2 rise?
What cause the cycle temperature decrease over the last 450,000 years?
Why, although CO2 is higher than has been seen in the last 450,000 years is the global temperature not lots higher than has been seen before?
Why wouldn't we follow the same cycle now over the next 50,000 years?
Why is any contribution due to man going to alter this cycle?

You're not going to respond to me are you?

Pointing out on STW that man's current activities will lead to climatic change that is undesirable as it will lead to much suffering for many is perhaps a waste of my time. My time might more usefully be spent on a US forum or trying to reach the billions of Chinese and Indians that want nothing more than to increase their carbon footprint and will soon threaten to nuke anyone that gets in the way of their aspirations. Laters.

so you are not going to answer any question then or provide any evidence?

If you simply dont "believe" thats fine

Wiredchop

What do you want from me. Yes, i think that the planet has and can still cope with the cyclic nature of the CO2 and temp rises. I think it is a little more hardy than a glass ball. Humans impact, well its obviously not zero, we have already had a good go at screwing up the planet, but its not the actual impact is hard to determine, and will be within our generation(s). If the planet is capable of taking care of itself is it ok for us to continue on the way we are - NO, but i have said this all along.

Yes, i think that the planet has and can still cope with the cyclic nature of the CO2 and temp rises

Why do you think this?

Thanks Hainey,
I hope that didn't hurt too much, ok completely agreed, the planet can shrug us off like an itch and we won't make a scratch. How do you think humans will fare if the Earth decides to correct our tinkering?

What with say an ice age or something equivalent to a medieval warm period? Like we have seen before?

Why do I think this, because there is no evidence to suggest not. Of course, i can not prove either way! Can you? 😉

and around we go,

Do you have any evidence to support your view?

FFS not proof again Hainey you were doing well then you had learnt and were answering questions and being sensible for a bit ah well off to do something more productive like teach my dog chess

Not necessarily, I suppose we differ in the 'natural cycle' business. The crux of it is how we're threatening to tip the balance of the relatively stable 'natural cycle' which you refer to frequently. Not only in our CO2 emissions but in many many ways. If I can be more succinct, it would be to ask whether you think our actions are at risk of pushing us off of this natural cycle and that the resulting 'balance' might be very unfavourable to our way of living. And finally, whether you think we're anywhere near approaching a tipping point?

(Failing in the succinctness stakes) Was trying to get to the philosophical core of the question, beyond the graphs and committees and all that bullpoop. Whether you're someone who sees our presence on earth in our current capacity as part of the natural order. Whether you think there are any consequences of our way of life and whether these might manifest themselves sooner or later. Really global warming is just one argument in this debate. Was trying to look a little wider that's all.

Yes, the ice core sample data, showing historical cycles. Do you have any evidence to show that this won't happen again?

Hainey, during the last ice age I believe humans lived in relatively mobile small groups of hunter gatherers. Given how badly our current set up copes with extremes of weather it seems reasonable to avoid risking a major climate shift. It's not as easy to move a city, or redesign it to cope with a changed climate.

Again I'll ask the question of what you would consider 'proof' that our emissions are changing the climate and will lead to more significant changes in the future as the inertia in the system catches up?

Junkyard, you are quite craftly deflecting away from answering any of my questions. Have fun with the dog. Mine has learnt how to play twister.