It's global cooling, not warming!

Junkyard you need to read some of the information you are researching instead of just cut and pasting. No, unless you believe the flintstones, dinosaurs did not have cars, but CO2 and temperature fluctuations equal and in excess of what we have seen recently have been seen many times before on this planet far before man had any influence.

bigdave theres a difference between understanding how science works and taking a view on the evidence and doing anything about it. Just because I accept the (vast) majority scientific view doesnt mean I want to live in a cave. Its the same as people who didnt really understand that just because I worked as an ecology researcher I didnt just eat lentils

but CO2 and temperature fluctuations equal and in excess of what we have seen recently have been seen many times before on this planet far before man had any influence.

That is very true but of little relvance to deciding if current climate change is caused by humans

It is AS relevant as computer simulations based on assumptions.

Out of interest there is an interesting article in the Sunday Times today regarding the complete rubbish spouted at Copenhagen summit regarding sea level rises because of an "over-simplified computer model".

copenhagen is about politics not science.

It is AS relevant as computer simulations based on assumptions

You cannot have it both ways, could you try clarifying your position as I fail to understand what your wibbling on about.

What assumptions are you referring to?

I'll admit I have made some assumptions myself. I assumed they were plugging data from ice cores and other carbon sinks into the models. Are they making these computer models up without using any actual real world data or something? That's ruddy terrible if they are! Hainey, can you tell me exactly what assumptions they are making that you know of?

Its easy, try and follow:

Historical evidence of natural cycles which can explain the current climate change are, well in my opinion, MORE relevant than computer simulations based on hypotheses and predictions. Never underestimate the importance of historical data, its in fact the only true facts out there to base understanding on.

Sorry… You must excuse me.. I'm not being very clear..
What are the assumptions, hypotheses and predictions that you are referring to? And aren't the models that are being presented by the countless research institutions around the world producing graphs of predicted temperature change based on historical data? I mean, I had assumed that all the models used historical data as their starting point, after all ice core measurements from Greenland is historical data by it's very definition…

Or have I got that all wrong?

And I'm puzzled.. You say that the models are 'based on predictions'.. Call me stupid but I thought the whole point of a model was to be used as a tool to MAKE a prediction. What's the point of a model if you need a prediction before you start to build it?

Historical evidence of natural cycles which can explain the current climate change are, well in my opinion, MORE relevant than computer simulations based on hypotheses and predictions.

Which natural cycles explain current climate change?

There we go. That's about as simple a question as I could ask. See if you can answer that one question without going off on a tangent. Take into account that I am not (yet) saying that I think you are wrong, just asking for an explanation.

If you could maybe give us some details on the period, magnitude and causes of these cycles and explain how they work together that would be great.

Oh nearly forgot: How have these natural cycles been measured over time? (As you've said yourself I think, you're not a fan of proxy measurements, so I guess we're talking about direct measurements?)

fair play to you hainey, you have no clue what you are talking about, but it doesnt stop you saying what you think and having the arrogance to think the vast majority of the scientific community are wrong and you are right. I admire you, I wish I was more like you and could well be falling in love. Could you email me a picture of yourself?

Never underestimate the importance of historical data, its in fact the only true facts out there to base understanding on.Historical evidence of natural cycles which can explain the current climate change are, well in my opinion, MORE relevant than computer simulations based on hypotheses and predictions.

I know imagine a scientific theroy that predicted things from known observations 🙄 You really are clueless about science aren't you.

so again then for you
why and by what mehanism has the CO2[ harmful gas as you call it without irony] not altered the natural cycles?
Surely CO2 has a forcing effect? If not why not?
Please explain this instead of just saying it is all a natural cycle- the increased release of stored co2 by burning fossil fuels is in no sense a natural cycle is it?
When you say natural cycle what time scale are you meaning in Thousands of years please?
Finally

CO2 and temperature fluctuations equal and in excess of what we have seen recently have been seen many times before on this planet far before man had any influence

How many thousand years are you going back for this unevidenced assertion?

I don't have the time or the patience to really satisfy your religous arrogant style when it comes to accepting that the jury is still out on climate change. Is it SO hard to accept that people have different opinions, not just me and you, but countless scientists around the world?

YES? Well there you go, that is why this "debate" is going round and round in circles.

The simple facts are as follows:

1. Climate change is happening
2. We don't know whether we are still in a natural cycle
3. We don't know whether it is down to man
4. We do know that whatever we can do to reduce our consumption of our natural resources can only be a good thing.

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. But, what we also know today is that for the last 10,000 years we have seen the same sort of rises and falls as we are doing today, any a lot of people believe that we are just in the same cycle.

Go on, shout me down, HERETIC, NON BELIEVER, or maybe just cry in your pillow that you can't actually prove you are right.

It is this sort of fanatical arrogance that winds me up, and to do it in the name of science is also arrogant. Don't drag science down with you.

Junkyard, i would look past IPCC and Wikipedia for your cut and pastes and also have some sort of knowledge to back it up with. 😉

Junkyard, i would look past IPCC and Wikipedia for your cut and pastes and also have some sort of knowledge to back it up with

Yes if I only had your grasp of the subject eh. I reckon a lobotomy should just about do it 😉 You cannot criticise science for making predictions it is one of the things that a scientific theory MUST do or it is not science. It must have predictive value or else it would be a description. I would assume that is about GCSE level of understanding. As I have said I have a science degree and it should be clear to all but you that I am able to explain things when asked – keeping saying cut and paste as you really have no explanation to offer have you?
Excellent avoidance of all the central questions asked of you and I am sure that even you can tell from the postings on here that most people can see who has no grasp of the subject or science.
Ok at last 10,000 years thanks finally some sort of date excellent.

Ok C02 is at a 650,000 year high -so we have not seen these levels in the last 10,000 years –to me that is evidence to you a fact. You are WRONG.Do you want a reference or will that just be copying and pasting?

It is this sort of fanatical arrogance that winds me up, and to do it in the name of science is also arrogant. Don't drag science down with you.

WTF are you talking about ?

Ok, and for whoever it was who wanted just 1 out of many historic examples.

From about 850AD to about 1000AD the temperature rose 0.8degC, then from 1000AD to 1200AD it fell 0.9degC.

Sound familiar?

Is it SO hard to accept that people have different opinions

It is when they don't answer reasonable questions.

Which natural cycles explain current climate change?

rom about 850AD to about 1000AD the temperature rose 0.8degC, then from 1000AD to 1200AD it fell 0.9degC.

How was this measured?

How do you know this is part of a cycle?

Ice core samples

How do you know it wasn't?

We could go on all day but to be honest i'm rather bored with the arrogance and Junkyards lack of intelligence.

How do you know it wasn't?

I don't. But you said it was. Remember?

And aren't the models that are being presented by the countless research institutions around the world producing graphs of predicted temperature change based on historical data?

Mark, one of the key problems here is the validity of that data, there are huge discrepancies between the raw data and the homogenised data that goes to form the "global record" from which we draw conclusions about what has happened in the past:

Now, there are often good reasons why data might need to be adjusted, and as you'll know good scientific protocol would point towards flagging and explaining any adjustment to raw data, however there are also cases where a 'one size fits all' homogenisation algorithm gets applied to data – if we look at one example, thats become known as "darwin zero" then we can see how involved the issues for just one site can become, repeat that over hundreds of data points, and it becomes easy to wonder just how accurate the data is, that we then type into the supercomputers to work the model.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/

Edited to add – you mentioned Ice cores, of course these are one of several proxies (another being tree core records, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/ ) – these have to be validated/calibrated against more recent records (baseline) so if the recent record is wrong, the error which can creep in becomes unpredictable, and thats before we look at problems like divergence)

I feel bad, but I'm just not that concerned by global warming. I'll be long gone before it starts having any real effect. I know we need to be sensible for our children and our children's children but i just don't lose any sleep over it. Maybe that makes me a selfish pig. I always liked cycling through mud anyway.

What have I started here? 😆

It is this sort of fanatical arrogance that winds me up

You made some statements… several people have asked questions of you.. So far as I can tell you've not answered many of them. Instead you seem to keep avoiding them and in so doing you have stumbled over your own arguments.. That's not arrogance.. it's straightforward question and answer. In my experience it tends to be those with little understanding and knowledge that accuse others of arrogance when they suddenly realise they've dug themselves in a logical hole.

repeat that over hundreds of data points, and it becomes easy to wonder just how accurate the data is, that we then type into the supercomputers to work the model.

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..

Once you start isolating a single particular study and pulling it to pieces and then declaring that the trend is wrong you are sort of missing the whole point of science. Of course there will always be rogue studies that are full of holes and bollocks data – that's because they have been produced by humans.. 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.. when you do that you start to use the term 'weight of evidence'.. When you have that much bigger picture in front of you it is valid to try and make interpretations and draw conclusions and even try and think of new experiments and ways to test the conclusion…. and round and round we go.. science never stops.. it keeps going, testing, interpreting and constantly adding to the weight of evidence, either strengthening the trend or otherwise.. It's all good 🙂

Currently, the 'weight of evidence' is leading to the conclusion (conclusion does not equate to truth or proof or worse.. 'belief'.. it's just an interpretation of the data) that man made global warming is the reason the climate is changing.

We can all google and dig out data that suggests it isn't. And if we do find it we should add it to the weight of evidence to improve the interpretation.

I'm all for continued additions to the data in order that we can refine that conclusion.

Personally, I have no 'belief' in man made global warming. The data suggests it is the case though and I believe in the data.

No, its when people start preaching and shouting at people who disagree with their opinion that they start posting pictures of Laurel and Hardy and Conspiracy theories to try and detract from the original statements. Thats when you know a debate is lost.

Is it too hard to admit that you can not prove climate change is due to man? Is it?

Is it too hard to admit that you can not prove climate change is due to man? Is it?

are we not saying that man is causing a alteration in the rate of change in the cycle, rather than man is causing the change per se?

Is it too hard to admit that you can not prove climate change is due to man? Is it?

jesus, can you really not read?

You cannot prove climate change is man made, but the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests it is. The converse is also true, you cannot prove that climate change isnt man made. Which brings me back to the moon and cheese again, and around and around we go because you dont understand how science works.

Which brings me back to the moon and cheese again, and around and around we go because you dont understand how science works.

Let's talk cheese. I think this thread is lacking cheese content…

Did I use big words?

sigh!

You cannot prove climate change is man made

– right

but the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests it is

– wrong

There is NOT overwhelming evidence, there is data that has been interpreted in one way.

I would do yourself a favour and drop the moon being made from cheese thing, you really are making yourself look very stupid and i am sure you are not.

I got home really late last night and realised I had sod all food in the fridge.. I had a block of white stilton and some bread. White stilton is awesome as cheese on toast! I realise of course that this study and conclusion is just a single data point on the overall chart of cheese on toast study and therefore it would be irresponsible to declare that it's awesomeness is the truth or declare I have proved anything. A meta analysis is required of cheese on toast recipes and so I ask that others attempt to reproduce my results and even suggest new recipes to be compared against my white stilton study. Once we have many studies and lots of data we can then attempt to detect a trend and perhaps announce a conclusion base on the weight of evidence..

Is there a nobel prize for cheese?

🙂

I'm officially giving up Hainey now.. There is simply no hope 🙂

Did I use big words?

sigh!

Nice diversion!!

Go on, you know you want to, bring out the Daily Mail comment, its the final straw in knowing you are losing a debate!! 😆

I have to admit, you have got me worried with this whole not being able to prove science thing. I mean have you told all the engineers around the world that suddenly archimedes based buoyancy theory is going to change and all the boats they are designing will sink suddenly, oh and those aerodynamic lift calculations based on science, you best get on the phone to Boeing and Airbus and warn them before all the planes drop out of the sky!

hainey you dont understand the meaning of the words you are using. Theres are fundamental experiments showing that CO2 can affect climate and we know the actions of man produce lots of CO2 this is called evidence, its thought by the majprity of the scientific community who know more about assessing this evidence that man made climate change is real.

Now if you want to not believe them thats fine but dont try to use science to justify it.

This moon being made of cheese thing is a very simple example used to show very simple people that science doesnt need to prove things and cannot anyway. If you think it makes me look very stupid, I feel sorry for you.

lol 🙂

Love it

🙂

hainey , sorry to but in but were you educated at public expense? if so can we get a refund ?

Blue cheeses are good. How about Roquefort?

Crankboy, great contribution, i assume you haven't reached the age for secondary education yet?

If we are on cheese – Oxford Blue.

Hainey, just out of interest, what would you consider as acceptable 'proof' that GHG emissions from our activities are increasing global temperatures?