Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Nice try Pooey? You often refer to Real Climarte as a source because its on your 'band wagon'?

No, I refer to that website because the authors are actual climate research scientists and not Economists with an opinion.

Quote by: xyzer When the climate data varies with model predictions you/he immediately compare the two asm a basis.for discussion. The graph is, I notice, and indicator of less than 1 degree in temperature change over a quarter century?

Yes, the accepted average rise in global temperature for this century is around 0.7C. So what is the problem?

Quote by: xyzer I notice the author of this deceptive article has erred immediately by including weather reports in the climate cycle?

How is it deceptive? What weather reports? You have it backwards, the article takes about how you shouldn't take data taken over short periods and try to establish a long term trend.

Quote by: xyzer That "dog wont hunt"? You and real climate have been rationalizing climate trends based on temperature measurements for years now. You have ignored temperature trends such as the cooling that accompanied industrial expansion in the last century?

Erm, are you referring the apparent cooling in the 1960s, do I have to explain that one to you again?.

Quote by: xyzer You and Real Climate keep throwing out graphs that shrink or expand the time frame to shape your arguments?

Which ones? Please specify.

Quote by: xyzer When the time frame is short, you rationalize by saying that a temperature change of less than 1 degree is important in climate measure? And you also do this in longer time frame graphs such as the infamous "Hockey Stick"? Interpretation of data is shaped to buttress your arguments?

You'll have to explain to me what the heck you're talking about.

Quote by: xyzer This para illustrates the point.... Weather is unrelated and yet you believers use it in your models?

Wow, what an idiotic statement to make. What do you think climate is? It's a "Climate is the average and variations of weather in a region over long periods of time." Borrowed from here

Quote by: xyzer I could individually challenge most of the drivel that this guy tries to peddle but this paragraph sums up the nonsense..

I have yet to see any challenge, all I can see is more of your usual drivel.

Quote by: xyzer In summary climate changes much more slowly than weather. The author is right about variability but bases and has based his models andconclusions on relatively short term(in a geologic sense) weather and its proxy revelations and yet when an actual measurement trends are used by those who would refute his analysis he claims weather (temp) changes are random and variable?

No, that's not what he said. You're drawing a strawman and using red herrings. His update clears things up a bit

These graphs illustrate that the 8-year trends in the UK Met Office data are of course just as noisy as in the GISS data; that 7-year trend lines are of course even noisier than 8-year trend lines; and that things start to stabilise (trends getting statistically robust) when 15-year averaging is used. This illustrates the key point we were trying to make: looking at only 8 years of data is looking primarily at the "noise" of interannual variability rather than at the forced long-term trend. This makes as much sense as analysing the temperature observations from 10-17 April to check whether it really gets warmer during spring.

Source
Now, are you trying to contend with the claim that waiting for more data before we get a conclusion is a poor way of doing science? I'd love to see your reasoning behind that...
Also, what measurement trends are you referring to? Please cite it specifically.

[xyzer]

Also, what measurement trends are you referring

I'm referring to the recent figues showing global cooling over the past few years. Have you seen a study that includes this data? We are told that the cooling is related to El nino a recurrent influence on some land areas climate? Rumor has it that the cooling trend may continue for 15 or 29 years?
Was that cranked into the predictive models used by the IPCC? Was sunspot data added to those predictive models of the late 199'0s and is it still the same?
Instead, what we read and hear is mostly based on the insistence that global climate is overwhelmingly influenced by anthropogenic CO2. Thats the dogma, since CO2 is increasing the climate has to get warmer? If there is any variatiojn to warming it is rationalized as variablity of weather?Climate? But ultimately the earth is going to resemble Venus unless we stop using carbon energy?
Enough already?

Here is a recent article that points out the problem?
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? | The Register


from the article...

Both of the satellite data sources, as well as Had-Crut, show worldwide temperatures falling below the IPCC estimates. Satellite data shows temperatures near or below the 30 year average - but NASA data has somehow managed to stay on track towards climate Armageddon. You can draw your own conclusions, but I see a pattern that is troublesome. In science, as with any other endeavour, it is always a good idea to have some separation between the people generating the data and the people interpreting it.

Also..

Confusing? How can scientists who report measurements of the earth's temperature within one one-hundredth of a degree be unable to concur if the temperature is going up or down over a ten year period? Something appears to be inconsistent with the NASA data - but what is it? One clue we can see is that NASA has been reworking recent temperatures upwards and older temperatures downwards - which creates a greater slope and the appearance of warming. Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre has been tracking the changes closely on his Climate Audit site, and reports that NASA is Rewriting History, Time and Time Again. The recent changes can be seen by comparing the NASA 1999 and 2007 US temperature graphs. Below is the 1999 version, and below that is the reworked 2007 version.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I'm referring to the recent figues showing global cooling over the past few years.

Are we talking about natural fluctuations or an actual cooling trend?

Quote by: xyzer Have you seen a study that includes this data?

No, I am not a researcher so I can't give you answer straight away.

Quote by: xyzer We are told that the cooling is related to El nino a recurrent influence on some land areas climate?

It's actually La Nina, and it's been noted for quite a while.

Quote by: xyzer Rumor has it that the cooling trend may continue for 15 or 29 years?

This is a scientific debate, I don't deal with rumours.

Quote by: xyzer Was that cranked into the predictive models used by the IPCC? Was sunspot data added to those predictive models of the late 199'0s and is it still the same?

Haven't we already covered the sunspot influence hypothesis? Do I really have to repost links about the lack of correlation between sunspot activity and the recent warming for the past few decades? Do I really?

Quote by: xyzer Instead, what we read and hear is mostly based on the insistence that global climate is overwhelmingly influenced by anthropogenic CO2.

No, that's not what has been claimed. You are making things up, CO2 accounts for 9 to 26% of atmospheric thermal retention, this is far from overwhelming, is it? However, it does make it a significant player. Now please stop lying and making things up.

Quote by: xyzer Thats the dogma, since CO2 is increasing the climate has to get warmer? If there is any variatiojn to warming it is rationalized as variablity of weather?Climate? But ultimately the earth is going to resemble Venus unless we stop using carbon energy? Enough already?

Please stop using misleading conjectures. CO2 is a significant driver in thermal retention but we've never said that its effects are greater than any other factors out there. Are you having trouble because the scientists can actually justify the changes in temperature? So, either way, if they don't have an explanation; you're right, if they do have an explanation, you're also right because...well, it seems you're a climate god!

Quote by: xyzer Here is a recent article that points out the problem? Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? | The Register from the article... Also..

Allow me to quote from Met Office UK

Global temperature for 2008 is expected to be 0.37 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, the coolest year since 2000, when the value was 0.24 °C.

As we've mentioned above, this is attributed to natural phenomenons such as La Nina.

[xyzer]

Pooey posts, along with other juvenile, ad hominem nonsense..

Please stop using misleading conjectures. CO2 is a significant driver in thermal retention but we've never said that its effects are greater than any other factors out there. Are you having trouble because the scientists can actually justify the changes in temperature? So, either way, if they don't have an explanation; you're right, if they do have an explanation, you're also right because...well, it seems you're a climate god!

I'm not giving you any misleading conjectures! I'm giving you the facts as I find and interpret them. You may never have said that CO2 was a primary driver of climate warming but you sure belong to the side that says it is the agent that has warmed the earth.? When I present you with evidence that contravenes your orthodoxy you claim I'm misleading you and yet you never answer my question, why if CO2 is what caused warming and is still increasing has the measured global tmeperature cooled ? A rational person would turn to some other Natrual cause as much more of an influencer?


Incidentally this is a first...

Please stop using misleading conjectures. CO2 is a significant driver in thermal retention but we've never said that its effects are greater than any other factors out there.

What the heck do you think we are debating about? What are you and the rest of the "tree huggers" so alarmed about? Why are we constantly warned that if WE dont change our energy habits we are doomed? I have not claimed that CO2 was not a forcing agent! Only that other "natural forces are much greaterinfluence! The latest data which you choose to ignore supports my so called misleading conjecture? Are you serious or are you some kid who hasn't taken a course in logic yet?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey posts, along with other juvenile, ad hominem nonsense..

Frankly, you have no right to say that at all, given that you've been ignoring our points and repeating the same misleading questions and in some cases, outright lies.

Quote by: xyzer I'm not giving you any misleading conjectures! I'm giving you the facts as I find and interpret them.

Yes, there you have it. You are re-interpreting things without proper understanding. I have never done that in this discussion because I know that I am not a climate scientists. Are you?

Quote by: xyzer You may never have said that CO2 was a primary driver of climate warming but you sure belong to the side that says it is the agent that has warmed the earth.?

That is the assessment of the IPCC. As I am not a climate researcher and I do not have contradicting data, I must accept their conclusions.

Quote by: xyzer When I present you with evidence that contravenes your orthodoxy you claim I'm misleading you and yet you never answer my question, why if CO2 is what caused warming and is still increasing has the measured global tmeperature cooled ?

You've offered no such evidence. I've already explained to you many times before, the recent "cooling" is due to the natural phenomenon La Nina. This is a well established global climate event, and we've covered it already above. Please stop trolling. The point has been done to death. Do what you usually do and bring it back in another month.

Quote by: xyzer A rational person would turn to some other Natrual cause as much more of an influencer?

That is the original premise of the scientific researches, but we've found that even accounting for all known natural influences, all the warming observed in the last century cannot be accounted for. That is why increasing CO2 has been blamed. Can you bring me evidence to show that natural influences that account for all the warming?

Quote by: xyzer Incidentally this is a first... What the heck do you think we are debating about? What are you and the rest of the "tree huggers" so alarmed about? Why are we constantly warned that if WE dont change our energy habits we are doomed?

I am no tree hugger, I merely think we can be more efficient in our energy usage. Is saving energy a crime? I never claimed we were doomed if we continued along this long, our civilisation is far too resilient. Rather, it is the rest of the world around us and those who cannot protection that will have problems. Obviously, that doesn't apply you and I because we live in vastly wealthy countries, any increased natural disasters cannot be averted (i.e. early warning) or repaired. But obviously, not everyone has that luxury.
Now, I know that you don't care about anything but yourself but when we're causing a mass extinction event seen only a few times Earth's recent history, don't you think we should change our ways?

Quote by: xyzer I have not claimed that CO2 was not a forcing agent! Only that other "natural forces are much greaterinfluence!

Yes, there are greater but that doesn't mean CO2's increase cannot alter the scales of balance.

Quote by: xyzer The latest data which you choose to ignore supports my so called misleading conjecture?

The latest data? Hold on, one of your tactics is often that the models are good enough or that the data is flawed. I have already answered you early, you cannot draw a long term trend based on a few years worth of data. As said earlier, it's like trying to work out if this summer will be really hot based on a few weeks of May...

Quote by: xyzer Are you serious or are you some kid who hasn't taken a course in logic yet?

Said the guy that ignores scientific research and instead prefers to make his own interpretations.

So Xyzer, you seem to flip flop like the average denier; you'll either

• Claim that there is no global warming
• Claim that the studies are flawed
• Claim that global cooling is happening & therefore CO2 is not important
• Claim that CO2 is too insignificant to matter
• We can't do anything to change what's happening so let's give up and keep going. Maybe we can dig a hole to the other side!

Of course, the list goes on but I do wonder which one of these favourite arguments you'll like to resurface?

[xyzer]

Pooey here is another lie that we 'deniers' tend to believe?

Dash of Calabash » Blog Archive » New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling

From the reference...

« Paying her for what?New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling By Dennis T. Avery Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.For the past century at least, global temperatures have tended to mirror the 20-to 30-year warmings and coolings of the north-central Pacific Ocean. We don’t know just why, but the pattern of the last century is clear: the earth warmed from about 1915 to1940, while the PDO was also warming (1925 to 46). The earth cooled from 1940 to 1975, while the PDO was cooling (1946 to 1977). The strong global warming from 1976 to 1998 was accompanied by a strong and almost-constant warming of the north-central Pacific. Ancient tree rings in Baja California and Mexico show there have been 11 such PDO shifts since 1650, averaging 23 years on length.

The PDO seems to be driven by the huge Aleutian Low in the Arctic—but we don’t know what controls the Aleutian Low. Nonetheless, 22.5-year “double sunspot cycles” have been identified in South African rainfall, Indian monsoons, Australian droughts, and rains in the United States’ far southwest as well. These cycles argue that the sun, not CO2, controls the earth’s temperatures.

Now that you are reluctantly admitting that anthropogenic CO2 may not be the prime driver of the past warming trend this may ease your mind. Evidently the PDO cycle is one natural force that controls climate in our world.and in this case also correlates with climate warming and cooling. Evidently it overcomes the CO2 correlation and has for a hundred or so years?

Here is another quote on the subject that may not be a lie.

All of this defies the “consensus” that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration—and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.

[Foxfyre]

To expand on Xyzer's post, as the AGW climate hysteria is steadily being eroded and exposed for the flawed theory or downright fraud that it most likely is, we are likely to see the scientific opportunists shifting their focus to a dangerous cooling trend. OMG, what are we going to do about THAT??????????

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh Phil Chapman April 23, 2008 THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot. Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770. It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases. There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet. The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years. The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027. By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining. Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time. If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale. For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun. We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits. We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades. The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible. All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake. In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut. Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh | The Australian

Or maybe, just maybe, we should be developing ways to cope with inevitable climate change that we have absolutely no power to change or alter in any way. Anybody with any sense of geography, history, biology or anthropology knows that warmer is better than colder for humankind and most other living things. But humankind and many other species survived the last ice age and we'll survive the next one. Global warming is not so serious a problem in a world that is going to have to feed billlions more people over the next generations and can better do that on a warm and fertile planet.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Foxfyre To expand on Xyzer's post, as the AGW climate hysteria is steadily being eroded and exposed for the flawed theory or downright fraud that it most likely is, we are likely to see the scientific opportunists shifting their focus to a dangerous cooling trend. OMG, what are we going to do about THAT??????????

Wow, an article written in website is enough to invalidate all the current scientific research out there!

Quote by: Foxfyre Or maybe, just maybe, we should be developing ways to cope with inevitable climate change that we have absolutely no power to change or alter in any way. Anybody with any sense of geography, history, biology or anthropology knows that warmer is better than colder for humankind and most other living things. But humankind and many other species survived the last ice age and we'll survive the next one. Global warming is not so serious a problem in a world that is going to have to feed billlions more people over the next generations and can better do that on a warm and fertile planet.

Actually, the best thing would be for the temperature to remain fairly constant, because that's what gave rise glorious civilisations we've had in the past few millennia.
Warmer temperatures doesn't automatically mean better yield of crops.
Also, if we take a look at the latest data here, the temperatures are still above the 20 year average so don't jump on that bandwagon yet!

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Pooeypants Wow, an article written in website is enough to invalidate all the current scientific research out there! Actually, the best thing would be for the temperature to remain fairly constant, because that's what gave rise glorious civilisations we've had in the past few millennia. Warmer temperatures doesn't automatically mean better yield of crops. Also, if we take a look at the latest data here, the temperatures are still above the 20 year average so don't jump on that bandwagon yet!

The bandwagon I ride is the one that is willing to look at ALL the scientific data out there and currently that is weighted on the side of no unusual global warming occurring and on the side of AGW being an unimportant part of whatever warming is currently occurring.

You said 'one article invalidates all current scientific research.' Actually it validates some other research I've seen re an impending cooling trend and it doesn't claim to invalidate anything.

For me the paradox has always been why people like you with no apparent expertise in climate science are so EAGER to believe the AGW religionists. What's in it for you? Why are you so desperate to negate all the really persuasive evidence out there that there may not be so serious a problem as the religionists say there is?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Foxfyre The bandwagon I ride is the one that is willing to look at ALL the scientific data out there and currently that is weighted on the side of no unusual global warming occurring and on the side of AGW being an unimportant part of whatever warming is currently occurring.

No, if you looked at all the scientific data you would arrive at the same conclusions as the IPCC. A panel of experts who review all the literature in the world about climate change. Are you claiming to have more scientific knowledge and wisdom than them?

Quote by: Foxfyre You said 'one article invalidates all current scientific research.' Actually it validates some other research I've seen re an impending cooling trend and it doesn't claim to invalidate anything.

Which research would that be? Please specify.

Quote by: Foxfyre For me the paradox has always been why people like you with no apparent expertise in climate science are so EAGER to believe the AGW religionists. What's in it for you? Why are you so desperate to negate all the really persuasive evidence out there that there may not be so serious a problem as the religionists say there is?

The paradox here is that you have a fanatical belief that human activity has nothing to do with global warming, even though you claim to look at all scientific evidence. That you'll be willing to take the words of a few based on sketchy or incomplete results is evidence of your bias. What is it that drives a denialist such as yourself?

[Foxfyre]

Pooey I am not interested in discussing this with kool-ade drinkers. I do hope you understand. I would like for you to answer my question though.

If you care to see what a lot of very highly credentialed scientists are saying on the subject, there is a pretty good concentration of sources and direct quotes at this site:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...eReport#report

You should know that quite a few of this are listed in your beloved IPCC report and they have now withdrawn their endorsement of that report after THEY looked closely at the evidence.

Here's what one of them said:

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top, young, award-winning scientists of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, recanted his belief that man-made emissions were driving climate change. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye," Shaviv said in a February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the CO2 temperature link is only "incriminating circumstantial evidence." "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist," Shaviv noted, pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant," Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that "CO2 should have a large effect on climate" so "he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views." Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. "I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views," he wrote.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Foxfyre Pooey I am not interested in discussing this with kool-ade drinkers. I do hope you understand. I would like for you to answer my question though.

What is Kool Ade? Never heard of it...

Quote by: Foxfyre If you care to see what a lot of very highly credentialed scientists are saying on the subject, there is a pretty good concentration of sources and direct quotes at this site: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...eReport#report You should know that quite a few of this are listed in your beloved IPCC report and they have now withdrawn their endorsement of that report after THEY looked closely at the evidence. Here's what one of them said:

It's interesting that in your very own cited paragraph just as an example, we see this

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist," Shaviv noted, pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature."

Of course, we have done more research into this solar link but it doesn't seem likely, unlike what he suggests.

However, I am in agreement with some of what is said in your extensive source; that the event has been sensationalised by the media and used by political forces.
Of course, there's a very simple solution to this debate. Find the natural cause(s) of these recent increase in temperature and we can discount human activity.

[xyzer]

Interesting report Foxfyre! I appreciate your finding it. Even more so because it echos what my laymans logical opinion has revealed to me. I've been interested in and done some research on what is really going on in the climate world.Even though Pooey accuses me of 'lying' when I post my opinions, I'm undeterred.His arguments are getting weaker and are being overcome by new measurements and revelations and he is beginning to know it.? One doesn't bow to the rigid mentality and obvious subjectivity of a 'believer.. I'm sure if he had existed in the middle ages he would have been convinced the "earth is flat"! Why because the IPCC(of that time) and the Church said so. To him scientific conclusions are fixed and can never be changed?

I have repeatedly posted on this thread and elsewhere that we "really just don't know all the facts about climate change and that there are other natural factors involved. I have decried the conclusions of Pooey, Gore and the IPCC that the world is ultimately headed for a climate disaster, a so called burning of humans and other existing species in a cauldron of heat and fire. I have questioned the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause of the warmiing trend of the past quarter century(have never denied it is a forcing agent)?

Each new bit of evidence which contravenes the general press and political hype surrounding climate is omitted rationalized or smothered and has been over the past generation. Logic and even factual evidence of cooling are challenged as an impossibility or rationalized as normal variation?
I think the tide is turning and the climate trend is changing.