Global Cooling for the next 20 years starts now!
Discussion
turbobloke said:
G_T said:
Hell of a difference between weather and climate though.
Seems to be some confusion about that....
The arbitrary definitions (e.g. 30 years, regional-to-global not local) are out there. Weather occurs within climate so it's a confusion and a relation.Seems to be some confusion about that....
Seems to be some confusion on both sides of the fence with us warmist attributing short term weather like flooding in cumbria to MMGW and your lot quoting the current cold snap.
I would recommend to anyone with a passing interest in climate and weather to watch the excellent Earth Story, currently showing on the Eden Channel - pure, unbiased and eminently watchable. Last night it was about the glaciers and ice ages. I am shocked this programme hasn't been earmarked for the 'banned list', for not ‘bigging up’ MMGW, and telling it like it is using hard scientific evidence with no cherry picking in sight..
G_T said:
turbobloke said:
G_T said:
Hell of a difference between weather and climate though.
Seems to be some confusion about that....
The arbitrary definitions (e.g. 30 years, regional-to-global not local) are out there. Weather occurs within climate so it's a confusion and a relation.Seems to be some confusion about that....
Seems to be some confusion on both sides of the fence with us warmist attributing short term weather like flooding in cumbria to MMGW and your lot quoting the current cold snap.
and as explained previously my replies on here are in the context of the statement they relate to, if 'you warmists' talk about 7 years (Hansen) or 10 years (IPCC and a lot more besides) then a response may well do likewise.I'm perfectly at ease discussing weather, as solar eruptivity forcing is a powerful natural climate driver and the lag is only 4 to 8 years which puts the impact - and we are noticing it now whatever label you prefer - inside the arbitrary 30 years cut as well as outside it.
chris watton said:
I would recommend to anyone with a passing interest in climate and weather to watch the excellent Earth Story, currently showing on the Eden Channel - pure, unbiased and eminently watchable. Last night it was about the glaciers and ice ages. I am shocked this programme hasn't been earmarked for the 'banned list', for not ‘bigging up’ MMGW, and telling it like it is using hard scientific evidence with no cherry picking in sight..
Agreed. I got video recordings of key bits such as the input from Dr John Butler (Armagh) and the Milankovitch evidence in geological formations, from the original screening. Great series and a good book too.I'm about to enter what appears to be the great Pistonheads climate bear pit. However I have a couple of questions that if someone has the time I wouldn't mind a response to. I realise that some may seem utterly simplistic however, I have a passing interest in this and wouldn't mind expanding my understanding of the subject.
1) Why the current arguements on climate change? Climate has always changed, we have had throughout history, periods of global warming and cooling of a much greater degree than we are witnessing now. To assert that climate is not changing would surely be utterly with out merit?
2) Taking into account that climate has always changed and with greater swings than we are seeing now, are we suffering from mans "god" complex, and are now victims of the assumption that there is nothing beyond mans control, including it would seem to some, climate change?
3) Surely (with out donning my favourite tin foil hat) this is a case of self justification on behalf of the scientists trying to prove anthropogenic global warming, ie "I've been given a large grant to prove the link and I'm damn well going to prove it, to ensure my next grant and also write my page in history". As well as being a rather handy band wagon for big business and government to jump on, and start a whole new raft of industry, taxes and money making ventures.
Hopefully these qustions aren't too "bone" for this heated debate.
1) Why the current arguements on climate change? Climate has always changed, we have had throughout history, periods of global warming and cooling of a much greater degree than we are witnessing now. To assert that climate is not changing would surely be utterly with out merit?
2) Taking into account that climate has always changed and with greater swings than we are seeing now, are we suffering from mans "god" complex, and are now victims of the assumption that there is nothing beyond mans control, including it would seem to some, climate change?
3) Surely (with out donning my favourite tin foil hat) this is a case of self justification on behalf of the scientists trying to prove anthropogenic global warming, ie "I've been given a large grant to prove the link and I'm damn well going to prove it, to ensure my next grant and also write my page in history". As well as being a rather handy band wagon for big business and government to jump on, and start a whole new raft of industry, taxes and money making ventures.
Hopefully these qustions aren't too "bone" for this heated debate.
Bosshogg76 said:
I'm about to enter what appears to be the great Pistonheads climate bear pit. However I have a couple of questions that if someone has the time I wouldn't mind a response to. I realise that some may seem utterly simplistic however, I have a passing interest in this and wouldn't mind expanding my understanding of the subject.
1) Why the current arguements on climate change? Climate has always changed, we have had throughout history, periods of global warming and cooling of a much greater degree than we are witnessing now. To assert that climate is not changing would surely be utterly with out merit?
2) Taking into account that climate has always changed and with greater swings than we are seeing now, are we suffering from mans "god" complex, and are now victims of the assumption that there is nothing beyond mans control, including it would seem to some, climate change?
3) Surely (with out donning my favourite tin foil hat) this is a case of self justification on behalf of the scientists trying to prove anthropogenic global warming, ie "I've been given a large grant to prove the link and I'm damn well going to prove it, to ensure my next grant and also write my page in history". As well as being a rather handy band wagon for big business and government to jump on, and start a whole new raft of industry, taxes and money making ventures.
Hopefully these qustions aren't too "bone" for this heated debate.
1) Yes1) Why the current arguements on climate change? Climate has always changed, we have had throughout history, periods of global warming and cooling of a much greater degree than we are witnessing now. To assert that climate is not changing would surely be utterly with out merit?
2) Taking into account that climate has always changed and with greater swings than we are seeing now, are we suffering from mans "god" complex, and are now victims of the assumption that there is nothing beyond mans control, including it would seem to some, climate change?
3) Surely (with out donning my favourite tin foil hat) this is a case of self justification on behalf of the scientists trying to prove anthropogenic global warming, ie "I've been given a large grant to prove the link and I'm damn well going to prove it, to ensure my next grant and also write my page in history". As well as being a rather handy band wagon for big business and government to jump on, and start a whole new raft of industry, taxes and money making ventures.
Hopefully these qustions aren't too "bone" for this heated debate.
2) Yes
3) Yes
HTH
Bosshogg76 said:
I'm about to enter what appears to be the great Pistonheads climate bear pit. However I have a couple of questions that if someone has the time I wouldn't mind a response to. I realise that some may seem utterly simplistic however, I have a passing interest in this and wouldn't mind expanding my understanding of the subject.
1) Why the current arguements on climate change? Climate has always changed, we have had throughout history, periods of global warming and cooling of a much greater degree than we are witnessing now. To assert that climate is not changing would surely be utterly with out merit?
2) Taking into account that climate has always changed and with greater swings than we are seeing now, are we suffering from mans "god" complex, and are now victims of the assumption that there is nothing beyond mans control, including it would seem to some, climate change?
3) Surely (with out donning my favourite tin foil hat) this is a case of self justification on behalf of the scientists trying to prove anthropogenic global warming, ie "I've been given a large grant to prove the link and I'm damn well going to prove it, to ensure my next grant and also write my page in history". As well as being a rather handy band wagon for big business and government to jump on, and start a whole new raft of industry, taxes and money making ventures.
Hopefully these qustions aren't too "bone" for this heated debate.
1) 1) Why the current arguements on climate change? Climate has always changed, we have had throughout history, periods of global warming and cooling of a much greater degree than we are witnessing now. To assert that climate is not changing would surely be utterly with out merit?
2) Taking into account that climate has always changed and with greater swings than we are seeing now, are we suffering from mans "god" complex, and are now victims of the assumption that there is nothing beyond mans control, including it would seem to some, climate change?
3) Surely (with out donning my favourite tin foil hat) this is a case of self justification on behalf of the scientists trying to prove anthropogenic global warming, ie "I've been given a large grant to prove the link and I'm damn well going to prove it, to ensure my next grant and also write my page in history". As well as being a rather handy band wagon for big business and government to jump on, and start a whole new raft of industry, taxes and money making ventures.
Hopefully these qustions aren't too "bone" for this heated debate.
2)
3)
HTH
Guam said:
When Half the planet is suffering from record breaking cold does that constitute a climatic event?
No, it isn't now pay attention. One cold winter does not indicate a reversal of MMGW. A record breaking warm summer, however, is an indicator of more warming to come as are storms, rain, Typhoons, plagues of locusts and herds of stampeding Wildebeast....and, er record breaking cold winters, apparently.
Edited by YAD061 on Tuesday 12th January 14:30
Guam said:
When Half the planet is suffering from record breaking cold does that constitute a climatic event?
No. Allow me to assist in clarifying the situation.IF there is a day which is warmer than average, this is global warming and a trend.
If there is a day or month or year which is colder than ever previously recorded, this is weather.
Jasandjules said:
Guam said:
When Half the planet is suffering from record breaking cold does that constitute a climatic event?
No. Allow me to assist in clarifying the situation.If there is a day which is warmer than average, this is global warming and a trend.
If there is a day or month or year which is colder than ever previously recorded, this is weather.
:warmist:
If we can carefully select 15 days throughout a several month period where the maximum temperature when averaged shows an increase then that is global warming and a trend.
If we need to 'add value' to those figures to correct for the figures not showing any increase we will do so and delete the original data.
We also reserve the right to make figures up if we don't have any data yet but it makes the timing of the results declaration more convenient.
If anyone calls us out on it and asks to see our data and calculations we will obfuscate and hide data, and then delete it, just to be sure.
Anything else, especially where it's a bit chilly, is just weather and we'll go very quiet, sulk and call everyone deniers when they laugh at us.
Meanwhile we will still chat to our mates and give each other tugs and reach arounds like sponsoring a Fellowship of American Geophysical Union and the like.
:/warmist:
HTH
Well I know y'all are going to disagree but I'm afraid I need balance again. I'm not an expert but...
Let's also recap the agreed points from both sides of the arguement; (1) Global average Temperature is rising (2) CO2 levels are rising (3) Sinks for CO2 i.e. rainforest are being reduced (4) CO2 acts as a good insulator because of the "greenhouse effect".
Bosshogg76 said:
1) Why the current arguements on climate change? Climate has always changed, we have had throughout history, periods of global warming and cooling of a much greater degree than we are witnessing now. To assert that climate is not changing would surely be utterly with out merit?
The observed climate change does not follow the current understanding of what could be an anthropological change. Nature responsibility has been considered to be effectively removed at this stage.Bosshogg76 said:
2) Taking into account that climate has always changed and with greater swings than we are seeing now, are we suffering from mans "god" complex, and are now victims of the assumption that there is nothing beyond mans control, including it would seem to some, climate change?
The scientific method is fairly indepth. The whole point of any scientific explantion is that it is the work is easily replicated and does not rely on any assumptions. You should also bear in mind the accumulative effect of CO2 emmissions. We're also not talking about "a small amount", we're talking gigatonnes of the stuff which has a fairly long half-life in atmosphere.Bosshogg76 said:
3) Surely (with out donning my favourite tin foil hat) this is a case of self justification on behalf of the scientists trying to prove anthropogenic global warming, ie "I've been given a large grant to prove the link and I'm damn well going to prove it, to ensure my next grant and also write my page in history". As well as being a rather handy band wagon for big business and government to jump on, and start a whole new raft of industry, taxes and money making ventures.?
Given the thousands of independant scientists, some with no vested interest, agree that MM global warming is the most likely cause of the rising temperatures that would make it the biggest and greatest ochestrated conspiracy theory of all time. I would think statistically speaking MMGW is more likely.Let's also recap the agreed points from both sides of the arguement; (1) Global average Temperature is rising (2) CO2 levels are rising (3) Sinks for CO2 i.e. rainforest are being reduced (4) CO2 acts as a good insulator because of the "greenhouse effect".
G_T said:
Well I know y'all are going to disagree but I'm afraid I need balance again. I'm not an expert but...
Let's also recap the agreed points from both sides of the arguement; (1) Global average Temperature is rising (2) CO2 levels are rising (3) Sinks for CO2 i.e. rainforest are being reduced (4) CO2 acts as a good insulator because of the "greenhouse effect".
a) Nor sure of your point. You are saying that its not anthropologically induced change, which seems at odds with the thrust of your post.Bosshogg76 said:
1) Why the current arguements on climate change? Climate has always changed, we have had throughout history, periods of global warming and cooling of a much greater degree than we are witnessing now. To assert that climate is not changing would surely be utterly with out merit?
The observed climate change does not follow the current understanding of what could be an anthropological change. Nature responsibility has been considered to be effectively removed at this stage.Bosshogg76 said:
2) Taking into account that climate has always changed and with greater swings than we are seeing now, are we suffering from mans "god" complex, and are now victims of the assumption that there is nothing beyond mans control, including it would seem to some, climate change?
The scientific method is fairly indepth. The whole point of any scientific explantion is that it is the work is easily replicated and does not rely on any assumptions. You should also bear in mind the accumulative effect of CO2 emmissions. We're also not talking about "a small amount", we're talking gigatonnes of the stuff which has a fairly long half-life in atmosphere.Bosshogg76 said:
3) Surely (with out donning my favourite tin foil hat) this is a case of self justification on behalf of the scientists trying to prove anthropogenic global warming, ie "I've been given a large grant to prove the link and I'm damn well going to prove it, to ensure my next grant and also write my page in history". As well as being a rather handy band wagon for big business and government to jump on, and start a whole new raft of industry, taxes and money making ventures.?
Given the thousands of independant scientists, some with no vested interest, agree that MM global warming is the most likely cause of the rising temperatures that would make it the biggest and greatest ochestrated conspiracy theory of all time. I would think statistically speaking MMGW is more likely.Let's also recap the agreed points from both sides of the arguement; (1) Global average Temperature is rising (2) CO2 levels are rising (3) Sinks for CO2 i.e. rainforest are being reduced (4) CO2 acts as a good insulator because of the "greenhouse effect".
b) Not rely on assumptions?? How do you reconcile that with the computer models used, which are chock-a-block full of assumptions? Your grasp of what is a scientific hypothesis or theory seems flawed. In addition the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere is small in relative terms.
c)There are not thousands of independent scientists agreeing. Unless you include those who have not looked in any depth but simply assume that the scientific method has been rigorously followed and that the claims being made are as high quality as those made by the hard sciences.
And 1) Its not clear at all that global temperatures have been rising in the past few years, however it is clear that there has been some warming since the LIA.
2)True. The reasons for which are not established with any confidence.
3)Its true that some sinks are weakening, however do you have any evidence that the plant/tree sink has done so?
4)CO2 is not a good insulator. It is a poor greenhouse gas.
Nature has not been removed either effectively or ineffectively from current or recent climate change, the notion that it has is risible. The IPCC's resignation inducing chap Trenberth can't account for the recent lack of warming i.e. cooling within the tenets of agw and regards it as a travesty. Carbon dioxide hasn't been removed either for the simple reason that there has not been any sign(al) of it anywhere. So there is nothing but natural climate change to be seen, everywhere.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff