It's global cooling, not warming!

Mark,

I still disagree, i can do a wikipedia search for climate change skeptics who list there issues with IPCC data. And this is just the ones who are willing to stand up and be counted and not have their research stripped away from them.

Z11

a) Yes, we have (challenged your assertions).

b) Even without historical data it is possible to look at how CO2 plays a part in the climate. If there was no historical data we would still have to try and account for current climate change.

ha ha ha, well done hainey Phill Stote or something cant remeber the name, he knows about as much about climate change as I do, which is pretty much **** all. He was a botanist, did some good stuff on chalk grassland. He has never published anything in a peer reviewd journal about climate change. And it wasnt published by Biogeography department at the University of London it was most likely in the Times. Hes an emeritus professor, do you know what that means?

Z11

Sorry, you edited while I was answering. Maybe best to wait 15 minutes between posts? 🙂

Anyway,

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.

I don't see Saudi Arabia (largest oil producing nation) promoting oil as a valuable scarce resource. Quite the opposite. In fact I don't see any oil companies promoting it that way – all of their current greenwashing is due to climate change arguments NOT peak-oil arguments.

as an aside do you know what biogeography is and how related it is to climate change?

LOL – way to fit the fanatic sterotype of jumping up and rubbishing any one elses opinion who disagrees with you.

and not have their research stripped away from them

On the whole, hainey you are amusing and it's fun to poke you with a metaphorical stick.. but when you post stuff like this without any kind of evidence to back it up I find myself shaking my head and saying, 'oh dear'.

Oh and for the record I'm laughing AT you and not WITH you.

🙂

I couldnt care less if peoples opinion differes from mine what I object to is people who spout there views as valid when they havent done any of the research. At least find a climate scientist who disgrees with man made climate change not a **** biogeographer who retired years ago. Biogeography is about how species distribute themselves and has nothing whatsoever to do with climate. He has produced no data to back his view point. He is not climate scientist he's a crank. He should have stuck to what he knew which is flowers.

a) Yes, we have (challenged your assertions).

No, you've not actually challenged anything – all you've said is that the science is settled, I put forward two specificexamples of at the best spurious, and at the worse horrifically manipulated, cherrypicked data – 'Darwin zero' and 'Yamal' – can you suggest or demonstrate to me that either of those sets of data are in fact reliable? Its no good saying that one example does not affect the entirety of the data, unless we also analyse the entire dataset to the same extent! and then we still have the turpentine problem, it only takes a small imperfection to taint the whole pooled dataset (thats how averages work)

b) Even without historical data it is possible to look at how CO2 plays a part in the climate. If there was no historical data we would still have to try and account for current climate change.

Again, what current climate change? the assumption that there is even actually a change relies on the same tainted data! Even the satellite records are calibrated against the same surface temperature records, its all one house of cards!

I couldnt care less if peoples opinion differes from mine

And there you have it, the arrogance and blinkered view which is associated with the fanatical point of view.

Mark, resulting to laughter is a tell tale sign of losing a debate!

Opinion and evidence are different things Stott is a biogeographer who I am pretty sure I referenced in my PhD about hay meadows who has an opinion on climate change. He's not anyone who has any evidence nor are you and nor am I. The majority view by those who study these things does not tally with your opinion. If you could use the science you know to develop some sort of rational view of why we should listen to you I might continue this. Have you come up with a view of what "natural" is and why we shouldnt worry about something thats "natural" and has happend before yet?

Watching this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtPDuZzfzhw&feature=related his first comment is odd as eugenics is based on sound evidenced science which still holds to this day, its just morally repugnant. Odd way to start I'm off to hear the rest.

Mark,

I am sure you are familiar with Climategate and the UEA scandal – some reading for you:

Climategate2[/url]

Natural essentially refers to the historical data way before man even existed, i.e the 100,000 year cycle i showed earlier.

I have never said that we shouldn't be worried about it, far from it. It has changed the face of this planet many times before. (We don't have to worry but maybe our great great great great great grandparents!)

Z-11

In a rush now. Will come back to your other points later. But, you say:

Again, what current climate change? the assumption that there is even actually a change relies on the same tainted data!

No. Loss of sea ice, retreat of glaciers etc is climate change. It is not weather. If we only had observations going back 5 years then we would still think "hmm all this sea ice melting, I wonder why that is?"

And don't say that it has happened before over millennia. In this hypothetical we have no data – right?

If we started 5 years back and had to come to a conclusion given only what we know over that period, what might our best guess be?

Natural essentially refers to the historical data way before man even existed, i.e the 100,000 year cycle i showed earlier.

Since man exists and has massive impacts on flora and fauna and the make up of the air, is it in any way relevant?

your "data" went back what 450 000 years didnt it? Man has been around for most of this time hasnt he?

I dont think you've yet told me what "natural" means

Ugh, its like pulling teeth, ok, in simple words for you

A natural cycle is a recurring pattern that involves cyclic variations in the Earth's temperature and CO2 content as indicated by samples taken from glacier ice, sea bed sediment, tree ring studies etc etc.

Clear enough?

I am not sure whether neanderthal man was driving round in Range Rover sports. But then I guess i can't PROVE that they weren't!

no, what does "natural" mean?

I give up. (Bangs head against wall)

Look it up in the dictionary.

Rightplace – the problem is that thats a local observation, not a "global phenomena" – Glaciers in some parts parts of the world are growing, sea ice is increasing in some areas and declining in others – temperatures in some parts of the world are down, in others they are up – Its no point pointing to a glacier thats melting and saying "proof" as I could point to another that was growing and say "proof you're wrong"! – what people are trying to analyse is a global average, and this is where it gets VERY complex, so the reliability of the data becomes absolutely paramount.

Its no point pointing to a glacier thats melting and saying "proof" as I could point to another that was growing and say "proof you're wrong"!

The actual official figure for the GLOBAL temperature anomaly is less than a degree – most of the thermometers that were used for the past couple of hundred years were only accurate to within a degree, where are the annual calibration records, where are the sites used to record, when were the housings for the thermometers painted or moved, what's happened around the location, what's the effect of building a new car park next door to the temperature station – etc. and thats BEFORE the data's been "value added" – These are all questions that would be asked under a normal scientific Quality Assurance protocol, the type of scrutiny applied under laboratory conditions.

You need to realise that what we are being sold as accurate data has an as yet unascertainable error margin!

You need to realise that what we are being sold as accurate data has an as yet unascertainable error margin!

Everybody does apart from the idiots who write newspapers and make TV programmes. Which is a problem.

hainey, these natural cycles, are they inevitable? I'm never really sure what natural means but am always cautious of anyone who uses the word about pretty much anyting as it seems to me almost anti-darwinian, there's nature and then there is man. But anyway moving along, these climate cycles occur when man has no influence. It doesnt mean that they will keep occurring when things change or that man cannot influence them in anyway.

Hainey Re your natural cycle could you just explain why this pattern of natural phenomena has not been changed by the burning of fossil fuels ?
Running cars and industrialisation are not natural aspects of nature this has broken your natural cycle. The burning of fossil fuels is not natural as it NEVER occurred in the past and we are at a 650,000 year hoigh so this "proves" this.
I don’t really see how you can actually argue about this – this ignores your previous dislike of models, and predicting the future from them Your model does not take account of this does it.

Everybody does apart from the idiots who write newspapers and make TV programmes. Which is a problem

A_A – would you accept the premise that the, as yet unascertainable, error may either

a) be so wide as to negate the entire concept of a "global temperature anomaly" of less than a degree

b) we wide enough to call into question the conclusions that the warming over recent decades is unprecedented (and by association therefore the cause and effect connection with global CO2 levels, possibly putting us back in the box of natural fluctuation)

zulu-11, of course but given the evidence there are many, more likely outcomes

It doesnt mean that they will keep occurring when things change or that man cannot influence them in anyway

I agree with you there, no one can categorically say that they will keep occuring, whether man will influence them or not. Neither can they say the contrary.

Junkyard, the cycles we have seen so far are NOT MODELS! They are FACT.

Junkyard, the cycles we have seen so far are NOT MODELS! They are FACT.

No they are based on data about other things and have been interpreted into temperature data. They are nowhere near fact.

So, if they are not fact, how accurate are your computer models for global warming?

So, if they are not fact, how accurate are your computer models for global warming?

I havent made any.

😯

Z11

Rightplace – the problem is that thats a local observation, not a "global phenomena" – Glaciers in some parts parts of the world are growing, sea ice is increasing in some areas and declining in others – temperatures in some parts of the world are down, in others they are up

I specifically didn't say "global warming" I said climate change.

If glaciers are growing (I think only in E Antarctica, but hey ho) then that would still be "climate change" and it would still need explaining.

So my question stands. If there were no historical data outside the last 5 years, what would the best guess be?

Z-11

where are the annual calibration records, where are the sites used to record, when were the housings for the thermometers painted or moved, what's happened around the location, what's the effect of building a new car park next door to the temperature station – etc.

These things all sound pretty random to me so probably a normal distribution. Lots of small errors seem unlikely to add up to one big error in one direction. But you're only talking about recorded temp there anyway which can be cross checked against recent ice cores etc.

hainey, i'm not sure about man-made GW, there's a lot of 'evidence' on both sides of the argument. however i support the belief that we are steadily fking up the planet with our consumption, we're all guilty of that to some extent – some of us are trying to limit our impact, some aren't.

So as a sceptic of MMGW, how does this affect your consumption of resources? Just interested. Do you carry on as normal, consume freely without guilt or, or do you do your bit to limit your impact on the world while believing that MM GW is a false alarm?

however i support the belief that we are steadily fking up the planet with our consumption, we're all guilty of that to some extent – some of us are trying to limit our impact, some aren't.

I completly agree and if you read most of posts have said so on a number of occasions. Just because someone is sceptic doesn't naturally mean that they don't give a f*ck about the planet.

Lots of small errors seem unlikely to add up to one big error in one direction

See, we're back to exactly what I said "one single rogue goat could not effect the overall validity of the cheese taste tests"

How do averages work again?

What if the error introduces a bias in the record – such as a change in the type of paint used on all stephenson screens in a whole country? – you cannot dismiss the effect of small errors, especially where the global temperature anomaly is in the bracket of 0.1 degrees per decade!

How can you check a record against ice cores, when they themselves are validated against the same records, again house of cards!

hainey can you answer this? If these changes in climate that have happend before (I hesitate to use the word cycle as they have only been shown to happen what half a dozen times which is poor evidence of a cycle) how are they relevant to the world now given unprecedented releases of CO2 and a massively changed biosphere?

Are they unprecedented though in comparison? If you look at the CO2 level increases in the past they are in a similar order. So i would say highly relevant.

there was a lot of posts to be fair ) i'm coming across more and more people who are sceptics yet they still care about their impact, that's all good. i didn't mean to infer that you didn't, i just wondered.

the problem with all the arguments on either side is that it's getting easier for those that don't care to support thier attitude with 'facts', it risks discrediting an argument that, right or wrong, may persuade people to take on better practices. propoganda in this area can't be bad, companies making money out of the peoples guilt aside..

so they are not at a 650,000 year high then- even the link you posted to support your position acepted that?

James 0

there's a lot of 'evidence' on both sides of the argument

Not really correct that. There is a lot on one side and some on another.
Remember the prima facie case with MMGW is we know that C02 levels have increased due to us and we know it is a greenhouse gas and it was not present at these levels in any natural cycles- I don’t think even Hainey is arguing about that …. it would seem most unlikely that this has no effect …. I assume both sides agree with cause and effect. We certainly have a cause so why no effect ? You would need to suggest a thing that stops this effect not just say it is natural as the burning of fossil fuels is not natural and has never occurred before

See, we're back to exactly what I said "one single rogue goat could not effect the overall validity of the cheese taste tests"

How do averages work again?

Bad analogy

If you want to follow your analogy then we wouldn't be talking about one goat drinking a bottle of turpentine. We'd be talking about lots of goats drinking lots of microscopic amounts of turpentine + a lot of other goats drinking microscopic amounts of anti-turpentine.

To do it the other way around – for one (or even a few) temperature records to throw out the average that much there would have to be places on the earth recorded as being as hot as the sun – and that might lead people to ask a few questions and take those readings out of the data. Now, do you think the data would be better with or without those readings?

silly old goat……. 😆