Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[retep 68]

There's some raw data here ... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

and more here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

 

I'm not an expert in the field and I'm guessing neither are you, so we need to place our trust in those who have the expertise to analyse this raw data and who can trace their conclusions back to that data which is available for examination by others.

 

You see I could never have personally come to conclusions like the following, but I trust those who, in saying such things provide the data on which the conclusion is based.

 

Global surface air temperature has increased about 0.5°C from the minimum of mid-1992, a year after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Both a land-based surface air temperature record and a combined land and marine temperature index place the meteorological year 1995 at approximately the same level as 1990, previously the warmest year in the period of instrumental data. As El Nino warming was absent in 1995, the solar cycle near a minimum, and ozone depletion near record levels, the observed high temperature supports the contention of an underlying global warming trend.

 

I've yet to hear from a climate change denier who can point to data that stands up to scrutiny.

 

If there's a claim that it's the hottest since 1860 you'd expect the source of the claim to be available, where is it, whats it based on.

[spinac 10]

If there's a claim that it's the hottest since 1860 you'd expect the source of the claim to be available, where is it, whats it based on.

 

Follow the links man! You have to click 'n' read some things for yourself.

 

Here's a starter: GHCN is the Global Historical Climatology Network. HadISST1 is The Met Office Hadley Centre's sea ice and sea surface temperature (SST) data set

 

The claims about climate change are based on the published numbers. Add them up for yourself. Find the average. Look at the change over time. Tell us what you find.

 

And if you don't like these figures, point us to your reliable data sources so we can do some calculations on them.

[JIbbo 10]

There's some raw data here ... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

and more here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

 

I'm not an expert in the field and I'm guessing neither are you, so we need to place our trust in those who have the expertise to analyse this raw data and who can trace their conclusions back to that data which is available for examination by others.

 

You see I could never have personally come to conclusions like the following, but I trust those who, in saying such things provide the data on which the conclusion is based.

 

Global surface air temperature has increased about 0.5°C from the minimum of mid-1992, a year after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Both a land-based surface air temperature record and a combined land and marine temperature index place the meteorological year 1995 at approximately the same level as 1990, previously the warmest year in the period of instrumental data. As El Nino warming was absent in 1995, the solar cycle near a minimum, and ozone depletion near record levels, the observed high temperature supports the contention of an underlying global warming trend.

 

I've yet to hear from a climate change denier who can point to data that stands up to scrutiny.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/

 

It's been one of the coldest starts to winter ever recorded (based on Central England Temperature (CET) records which started in 1659), with numerous local records broken.

 

Such has been the intensity of the cold, rivers across Yorkshire have begun to freeze over, a rare phenomenon in itself, but virtually unheard of so early in the winter season.

 

i know weather isn't temperature but to have 300 year old temperature records broken by COLD not HEAT.

 

Doesn't fit the theory of GLOBAL warming. I.e. average temperatures across the earth increasing on average everywhere in a direct relationship to CO2

 

Neither does the following fit "Global Warming"

 

If the globe can cool naturally why can't it warm naturally as well ?

 

Cooling doesn't fit the scientific hypothesis that "increased emissions of CO2 increases the earth average global temperature" which is the premis of AGW.

 

As GLOBAL CO2 increases temperatures are falling.

[JIbbo 10]

It is far from obvious that solar cosmic rays would increase cloud cover. The paper that made that suggestion has been shown to have been manipulated and false, and one of its authors now accepts those flaws.

 

Even if there is a small correlation, it would have no impact on what we do know about the greenhouse effect and what increasing CO2 levels will do.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sun-sets-on-sceptics-case-against-climate-change-1839875.html

 

The experiment results indicated recently from CERN superseding your wikilink by 12 month disprove that.

 

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/12/sunny_days_for_cloud_experimen.html

 

15th December i.e two days old....

 

 

The article linked to in nature was demonstrating that the actual model in cern was WORKING and that clouds were forming based on cosmic rays.

 

The paper you quote of being 'discredited' isn't and was argued against due to the cloud modeling data and numerous revisions and corrections publised since that original paper to support the theory.

 

Unfortunately wikicat the evidence in CERN is groundbreaking. Clouds are ineffect being formed on the basis of the cosmic ray theory.

 

That was what the CERN experiment was designed for.

 

To test and prove / disprove the cosmic ray theory of climate change.

 

Obviously if the experiment was a failure I'm sure it would have been front page news.....

Edited December 17, 2010 by JIbbo

[JIbbo 10]

Follow the links man! You have to click 'n' read some things for yourself.

 

Here's a starter: GHCN is the Global Historical Climatology Network. HadISST1 is The Met Office Hadley Centre's sea ice and sea surface temperature (SST) data set

 

The claims about climate change are based on the published numbers. Add them up for yourself. Find the average. Look at the change over time. Tell us what you find.

 

And if you don't like these figures, point us to your reliable data sources so we can do some calculations on them.

 

Hows this for a few stats...

 

It is already clear: the average temperatures in Germany this year (8.1 degrees Celsius) were 0.2 degrees below the long term measured average of 8.3 degrees. "I fear we will end up still significantly lower by the end of the year", said Globig. The long-term average is actually the average of all German stations from 1961 to 1990.

 

Were even falling BELOW average now, now above.

 

How does that fit into AGW ?

[spinac 10]

Hows this for a few stats...

 

It is already clear: the average temperatures in Germany this year (8.1 degrees Celsius) were 0.2 degrees below the long term measured average of 8.3 degrees. "I fear we will end up still significantly lower by the end of the year", said Globig. The long-term average is actually the average of all German stations from 1961 to 1990.

 

Were even falling BELOW average now, now above.

 

How does that fit into AGW ?

 

Hmm interesting. What else do you have? Something on long term global averages maybe?

[spinac 10]

i know weather isn't temperature but to have 300 year old temperature records broken by COLD not HEAT.

 

Doesn't fit the theory of GLOBAL warming. I.e. average temperatures across the earth increasing on average everywhere in a direct relationship to CO2

 

You do understand averages don't you? If the average goes up that doesn't mean that every bit of data will follow the average?

 

As noted before local cooling may occur during global warming. Climate change will cause disruptions to convection currents in the atmosphere and the oceans. High pressure blocks can cause unusual and prolonged local weather variations.

 

Just 'cos we're sitting in an icy draught at the moment doesn't mean the whole planet is experiencing the same.

 

If the globe can cool naturally why can't it warm naturally as well ?

 

It can. it does. Factoring in all the natural variations and filtering out the "noise" there is still an underlying man made trend.

 

Cooling doesn't fit the scientific hypothesis that "increased emissions of CO2 increases the earth average global temperature" which is the premis of AGW.

 

As GLOBAL CO2 increases temperatures are falling.

 

Are you saying GLOBAL AVERAGE temperatures are falling? Where did you get that data from? Give us your source.

 

Or are you making your own wild leap from a short term local bit of data to a long term global trend?

[retep 68]

Follow the links man! You have to click 'n' read some things for yourself.

 

Here's a starter: GHCN is the Global Historical Climatology Network. HadISST1 is The Met Office Hadley Centre's sea ice and sea surface temperature (SST) data set

 

The claims about climate change are based on the published numbers. Add them up for yourself. Find the average. Look at the change over time. Tell us what you find.

 

And if you don't like these figures, point us to your reliable data sources so we can do some calculations on them.

 

Not good enough fella, you,re the one sticking the information up, now back it up.

[spinac 10]

Not good enough fella, you,re the one sticking the information up, now back it up.

 

??? whadaya mean? I'm pointing you to the data.

 

Oh I just remembered ... you can lead a dumbkopf to data but you can't make him think!

 

Anyways ...

 

The cold anomaly in Northern Europe in November has continued and strengthened in the first half of December. Combined with the unusual cold winter of 2009-2010 in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, this regional cold spell has caused widespread commentary that global warming has ended. That is hardly the case. On the contrary, globally November 2010 is the warmest November in the GISS record.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

 

But I'm still intrigued. What are YOUR data sources? What are you basing your opinions on?

Edited December 17, 2010 by spinac

[retep 68]

??? whadaya mean? I'm pointing you to the data.

 

Oh I just remembered ... you can lead a dumbkopf to data but you can't make him think!

 

Anyways ...

 

The cold anomaly in Northern Europe in November has continued and strengthened in the first half of December. Combined with the unusual cold winter of 2009-2010 in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, this regional cold spell has caused widespread commentary that global warming has ended. That is hardly the case. On the contrary, globally November 2010 is the warmest November in the GISS record.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

 

But I'm still intrigued. What are YOUR data sources? What are you basing your opinions on?

 

I take it you can't.

[Frumius 10]

My use of denialist isn't directed at you, it is directed at the anti-global warming lobby who's arguments are based on lies, proven myths and fabrications. Just like with holocaust denial debate is important to a point, but once it is established they are untrustworthy sources of information There is little if any point considering them further. At that point they can be dismissed with labels. Monckton has been shown to be a charlatan, flat earther there is no point attempting to refute everything he says any more than there is any point engaging David Icke in debate about his lizardmen.

 

Debate however is far from pointless, it is essential, which is precisely why those not engaged in debating need to be labelled so they don't distract from the issues.

 

As for the fuel tax, I am generally opposed to direct taxation because it isn't progressive, however there are strong arguments for direct taxation where they are used to offset costs and environmental damage. Tobacco for example can defensibly be taxed to pay for the costs consumption causes the NHS.

 

I am not sure about your figures, the Telegraph is quoting them as coming from a source I have not heard of before. But assuming the figures are accurate then it highlights further the injustice of our wage system and of the failure of direct taxation to compensate for the inequality intrinsic in the economic system.

 

I am not sure why you quote a specific scientist (Monckton?) in your reply. I have not used him to support my arguement in this debate. Perhaps you are trying to justify your earlier categorisation of those who disagree with you as "wrong headed" or "climate denialists". And I dont know why you are talking about Lizardmen? How did you manage to get them into the debate?

 

You are clouding the issue . The issue is that mans' contribution to global warming is unproven. Further to that; whether it is proven or not, British families can have only a miniscule affect on the global situation. Given that that is the case it is unacceptable that poor (and not so poor) British families should be required to pay real money for what can only be a gesture to the global situation.

 

The threat of increased fuel bills and higher taxes to fund the installation of low carbon power generation is a frightening reality for people today. Your personal opinions about the tax system are not relevant to this debate.

 

You are very good at quoting scientific papers to support your theories but in this debate as in so many others the scientists often reflect the views of those funding them. You suggest that the antiglobal warming lobby is funded by elements within the USA Republican Party. My understanding is that they are funded by the Oil Industry while the pro.lobby is funded by the Nuclear industry. Either way there is loads of money available to scientists in this field.

 

I dont know how much of a scientist you are but we have all seen cases where scientists have propagated a scare story and made lots of money out of it. Remember the Millenium Bug, remember CJD, remember Swine Flu or Avian Flu. The list goes on.

 

Whether global warming is manade or not, the important thing is its effects and how they threaten communities. Investment must be made in dealing with this no matter what the origins of global warming are.

[Wildcat 10]

The experiment results indicated recently from CERN superseding your wikilink by 12 month disprove that.

 

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/12/sunny_days_for_cloud_experimen.html

 

15th December i.e two days old....

 

 

The article linked to in nature was demonstrating that the actual model in cern was WORKING and that clouds were forming based on cosmic rays.

 

The paper you quote of being 'discredited' isn't and was argued against due to the cloud modeling data and numerous revisions and corrections publised since that original paper to support the theory.

 

Unfortunately wikicat the evidence in CERN is groundbreaking. Clouds are ineffect being formed on the basis of the cosmic ray theory.

 

That was what the CERN experiment was designed for.

 

To test and prove / disprove the cosmic ray theory of climate change.

 

Obviously if the experiment was a failure I'm sure it would have been front page news.....

 

The results aren't that surprising... so there is a negative feedback loop, the problem is that it isn't anything like as large as the positive feedback from the radiative forcing from the way clouds formed amplify the greenhouse effect. There is even a paper about it in this week’s issue of Science by Andrew Dessler

 

There is an account here of Roy Spencer having a hissy fit about it:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/feedback-on-cloud-feedback/#more-5676

 

Edited December 17, 2010 by Wildcat