Global warming.

[IncendiaryGunner]

Your graph only shows since 1900, that does not disprove anything. The rest of the article does not have much data from year to year.

The second article addresses that very critique, along with many many others that have been written since that one.

The data is publicly available.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...a=X&ei=TBLSUK7-FMjxsgahrIHAAQ&ved=0CDQQgQMwAA

 

[Liberty1911]

Actually, the opposite has been demonstrated.


To believe that humans have no impact on the rising temperatures would either imply that:
A) Increased frequnecies of CO2 do not lead to an increase in temperature
or
B) Man does not contribute to rising levels of CO2

Faulty logic there.

1. You assume CO2 levels are the ONLY thing, or the OVERRIDING thing that contributes to global warming.

2. You assume that even if levels are rising and even if man contributes to CO2 levels, that man contributes to SUCH AN EXTENT, that it makes a difference.

However, your assumptions are exactly the assumptions of the global warming community. And just because you can get a politically motivated, government funded "scientist" to agree, does not make the assumptions any less faulty. It's as valid my global war parody.

 

[88GT]

I'm still not convinced that global warming is a bad thing.

I have used less electricity during these mild winters. Same or similar power usage during the summer.

Isn't that a good thing?

It sure as hell is better than a cold snap. What with the necessarily skyrocketing energy prices and what.

Temps have been a lot hotter and increases have been a lot faster.

I think the earth can handle it.

 

[Baditude]

Humans contribute to global warming, but very little in comparison to nature like a volcanic eruption - look how many we have had in the last 5 years.

There were measurable changes after Mt St Helens etc...

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Faulty logic there.

1. You assume CO2 levels are the ONLY thing, or the OVERRIDING thing that contributes to global warming.

2. You assume that even if levels are rising and even if man contributes to CO2 levels, that man contributes to SUCH AN EXTENT, that it makes a difference.

However, your assumptions are exactly the assumptions of the global warming community. And just because you can get a politically motivated, government funded "scientist" to agree, does not make the assumptions any less faulty. It's as valid my global war parody.

Yes, but my assumptions are also backed up by enormous amounts of analysis of empirical evidence.

That is where the big difference comes in.... Claim something is incorrect all you want, that is fine - I have no issues with dissenting opinions... but without the presence of evidence to support your claim, it will not be a scientifically respected opinion.

 

[printcraft]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJFYwRtrH4[/ame]

 

[smokingman]

Yes, but my assumptions are also backed up by enormous amounts of analysis of empirical evidence.

That is where the big difference comes in.... Claim something is incorrect all you want, that is fine - I have no issues with dissenting opinions... but without the presence of evidence to support your claim, it will not be a scientifically respected opinion.

I still have not seen you post a single scientific study linking human activity to global warming.I tried looking for one,and other than the 5 reports from the IPCC could not find a single published paper linking humans to global warming.

If there is such a paper or you are basing your opinion on anything other than the IPCC (a political organization per the charter)lets see it.

Show me a single scientific study that links humans to global warming(other than the political experts at the IPCC).

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I still have not seen you post a single scientific study linking human activity to global warming.I tried looking for one,and other than the 5 reports from the IPCC could not find a single published paper linking humans to global warming.

If there is such a paper or you are basing your opinion on anything other than the IPCC (a political organization per the charter)lets see it.

Show me a single scientific study that links humans to global warming(other than the political experts at the IPCC).

Then apparently you did not read the information I provided.

I will link this one again, since I have already referenced it twice: http://www.geol.lu.se/personal/bnb/pdf-papers/human_impact.pdf

When you are done with that, peruse through a few of the 120,000 results in this search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...a=X&ei=TBLSUK7-FMjxsgahrIHAAQ&ved=0CDQQgQMwAA

 

[smokingman]

Then apparently you did not read the information I provided.

I will link this one again, since I have already referenced it twice: http://www.geol.lu.se/personal/bnb/pdf-papers/human_impact.pdf

When you are done with that, peruse through a few of the 120,000 results in this search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...a=X&ei=TBLSUK7-FMjxsgahrIHAAQ&ved=0CDQQgQMwAA

I just read that entire report.It has nothing to do with humans causing global warming.It is simply a study on the effects of climate change and human use of land.It does not state anywhere humans caused the climate change,and in fact states the opposite.
"Climatically,this was a very dramatic period, with a short-term
wet/cool event with low solar intensity around 6000 cal:
BP followed by ca. 300 years of dry/cold conditions with
high solar intensity."

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I just read that entire report.It has nothing to do with humans causing global warming.It is simply a study on the effects of climate change and human use of land.It does not state anywhere humans caused the climate change,and in fact states the opposite.
"Climatically,this was a very dramatic period, with a short-term
wet/cool event with low solar intensity around 6000 cal:
BP followed by ca. 300 years of dry/cold conditions with
high solar intensity."

You are joking, right?

"There is a positive correlation between human impact/land-use and climate change, although precise correlations are difficult
because of weaknesses in the chronology."

"This compilation of human impact events in Northwest
Europe indicates that they are concordant with
periods of climate changes."

It specifically outlines human populations over time, and the correlation between human activity and climate change.....

Since that article was written, the concept has been expanded upon in much greater detail....

 

[smokingman]

You are joking, right?

"There is a positive correlation between human impact/land-use and climate change, although precise correlations are difficult
because of weaknesses in the chronology."
Yes it is harder to farm when the climate is cooler and warm periods have generally benefited humans.No where does it state humans caused the warming,it states SOLAR activity as the main cause of the warmer or cooler wet or dry periods.
"This compilation of human impact events in Northwest
Europe indicates that they are concordant with
periods of climate changes."
Yes it clearly states humans are affected by climate change.

It specifically outlines human populations over time, and the correlation between human activity and climate change.....
Yes human populations have changed with changes in climate.No where in that paper does it say humans caused the changes,just that human populations increased or decreased with changes in the climate.
Since that article was written, the concept has been expanded upon in much greater detail....

You are reading it from the perspective we cause climate change.You are not looking at it as it was written.That human activity and populations have changed as the climate does.Read it again.It clearly states human activity and land use changes with the climate,no where does it say human activity is the cause of the changes.It does in fact state solar activity is responsible.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Climate change denier: The world is not getting warmer.

Scientist: Yes it is - here, this demonstrates it.

Climate change denier: Well, it may be getting warmer, but it is not because of humans.

Scientist: Humans have an impact on the climate changing, this demonstrates it.

Climate change denier: I don't believe you.

Scientist: Ok, so show me where I went wrong...

Climate change denier: No - you prove it to me...

Scientist: I already did, and you cannot refute what I demonstrated...

Climate change denier: That does not count. See, it is a hoax.

You yourself admit that the IPCC data reveals that humans influence climate change, yet even though you cannot refute the data, you refuse to believe it for "political reasons". http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm

Seems legit.

 

[smokingman]

Climate change denier: The world is not getting warmer.

Scientist: Yes it is - here, this demonstrates it.

Climate change denier: Well, it may be getting warmer, but it is not because of humans.

Scientist: Humans have an impact on the climate changing, this demonstrates it.

Climate change denier: I don't believe you.

Scientist: Ok, so show me where I went wrong...

Climate change denier: No - you prove it to me...

Scientist: I already did, and you cannot refute what I demonstrated...

Climate change denier: See, it is a hoax.

You yourself admit that the IPCC data reveals that humans influence climate change, yet even though you cannot refute the data, you refuse to believe it for "political reasons".

Seems legit.

How anyone can have any respect for the IPCC is beyond me.An organization that claims our star the Sun can only cause 5% of climate change when we have been going through warming and cooling periods since before humans walked upright and the earth has been far warmer than it is now.
Even though there is a mountain of evidence linking solar activity to warmer and cooler earth temperatures through out history.The sun can not possibly cause warming...we need to tax carbon.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

How anyone can have any respect for the IPCC is beyond me.An organization that claims our star the Sun can only cause 5% of climate change when we have been going through warming and cooling periods since before humans walked upright and the earth has been far warmer than it is now.
Even though there is a mountain of evidence linking solar activity to warmer and cooler earth temperatures through out history.The sun can not possibly cause warming...we need to tax carbon.

That must be why so many climatologists disagree with the IPCC, and have been able to disprove their findings.

Oh wait, that never happened. The more climatologists study the data, the more they concur with one another.

Better ignore the IPCC demonstrations based on conspiracy theories... because no scientist in the world would love to have their name attached to one of the biggest breakthroughs in modern times, and they are all just in on it.

The sun's energy warming the earth must mean that increased levels of CO2 generated by humans has no effect whatsoever.

 

[88GT]

Can someone point me to a link that plots the location of the thermometers?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Can someone point me to a link that plots the location of the thermometers?

I do not have the exactly station references, however this map shows the stations that record temperature on Earth:

Also, many measurements are taken from space.

Probably not what you needed if you want specific measurements from the stations themselves. I do believe however that the CET has a large dataset that might prove useful.

This, too, may be useful: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

 

[smokingman]

That must be why so many climatologists disagree with the IPCC, and have been able to disprove their findings.

Oh wait, that never happened.

Better ignore the IPCC based on conspiracy theories... because no scientist in the world would love to have their name attached to one of the biggest breakthroughs in modern times, and they are all just in on it.

Yes,that is why the creator of the three main IPCC models quit.

Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

If some scientists would like do demonstrate in their own peer-reviewed paper where *anything* we wrote was incorrect, they should submit a paper for publication. Instead, it appears the IPCC gatekeepers have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCC’s politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused. I can see no other explanation for an editor resigning in such a situation.

BBC News - Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper
The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.
The editor now works for the IPCC.

Writer of the paper.
"The very fact that the public has the perception that climate change is man-made, when in fact there is as yet no way to know with any level of scientific certainty how much is man-made versus natural, is evidence of that."Dr Spencer is one of the team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville that keeps a record of the Earth's temperature as determined from satellite readings.

Canada Quit Kyoto, Must Now Quit IPCC - China & World - Chinadaily Forum
Canada Quit Kyoto, Must Now Quit IPCC
Each year a different critical period or issue was examined. Scientists studying all aspects of climate from dendroclimatology, to glaciology through historical climate presented papers, which were published in Syllogeus and edited by Dr. Richard Harington. One of the best studies, The Year Without A Summer: World Climate in 1816 looked at the impact of the eruption of the Tambora in 1815.The program ended when Environment Canada pulled funding to pursue their political goals at the IPCC. To pay for this they closed weather stations, curtailed service, spent millions on computers and models that were and remain inadequate. They directed all climate research funding to “prove” the hypothesis in contradiction to scientific method. EC misled politicians for years and continue to do so.

IPCC Climate Science Failure Requires Someone to Blame
Computer models are key to the IPCC circular argument. They’re programmed to the assumptions of the hypothesis, and therefore produce results that confirm the hypothesis. The problem is, nature hasn’t cooperated.

Thompson blames the political government, but it was the bureuacracy of Environment Canada and the IPCC that caused the problems when they decided to use science for a political agenda. Seems to fit the old adage that when you point your finger, there are three fingers pointing back at you.

Try and disagree with the IPCC.You will lose your career(or end up working at the IPCC agreeing with everything they say).

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Try and disagree with the IPCC.You will lose your career.

Anyone that could prove the IPCC incorrect and demonstrate better understanding of climate change would make their career.

If political pressures in the world were able to hold back science, then most of our modern understandings of science would not exist.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Can someone point me to a link that plots the location of the thermometers?

Now ask for the algorithm they use to normalize temperatures.

 

[fireblade]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nETqZHP1D7Q[/ame]