Thread: Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by JAD 333

The globe has been getting warmer for some time now.

As it happens, the warming parallels a sustained period of growth of industrial activity and fossil fuel consumption.

People are correct to suspect a cause and effect link between these two concurrent phenomena.

However, the suspicion has not been fully substantiated. Science has yet to
determined without a doubt that CO2 emissions from human activity is the primary cause of global warmng.

How 'bout :

The globe has been getting warmer for some time now.

As it happens, the warming roughly parallels a sustained period of growth of industrial activity and fossil fuel consumption.

Some people suspect a cause and effect link between these two concurrent phenomena.

However, the suspicion has not been fully substantiated. Science has yet to
determine without a doubt (and never will) that CO2 emissions from human activity are the primary cause (or even a major cause) of global warming.

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

Dale is absolutely on solid ground when he says "prove it", as are you when an assertion is made. When a skeptic makes a comment that "its all the sun", then the burden of that proffer falls to them. And when someone makes a wild statement, I will definitely call them on those.

You're wrong. When a skeptic (i.e. a normal person who doesn't buy into your religion) says "the Sun", then you have to explain how increased Solar activity over the last few centuries has not put more photons "than normal" into the planet's atmosphere, or, failing that, explain how those photons either did not contribute to the total energy absorbed by the atmosphere at all, or did not contribute enough. To show that they did not contribute enough, however, you'd need a solid understanding of how they contribute in the first place, and our understanding there is incomplete. Also, as weird as it seems, we don't have good quantitative data on Solar output going back more than a few decades. We have decent relative data going back further, and interesting correlative data going back quite far, but it's not enough.

What we DO have is the Sun known to be more active and different planets believed to be experiencing warming.

We don't have anything to really counter that, what with the major public datasets and interpretations showing errors (Hockey Stick, Hansen/NASA).

So is the Sun enough? Mmmm, maybe, maybe not. But it's sure as shinola a far more known variable than CO2.

-dale

Edited to add link to JunkScience article that parallels (but with far more numbers and squiggly graphy things) what I've said.

LinkyDink.

Keep in mind that it's from 2006 so it doesn't take into account the recently-acknowledged problems with the Hansen/NASA data.

Originally Posted by Ramo

And you, Dalem, have just stated that you do not care for the opinions of scientists, even if that opinion is backed by large numbers of them.

Have I understood you correctly?

Righto. I've met enough scientists to know that their opinions are no more valuable than mine. What I am interested in for topics like this are their data and their numbers.

-dale

Originally Posted by Julie

How about the EPA ? Future Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

When the intro paragraph reads

Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will increase during the next century unless greenhouse gas emissions decrease substantially from present levels. Increased greenhouse gas concentrations are very likely to raise the Earth's average temperature, influence precipitation and some storm patterns as well as raise sea levels (IPCC, 2007). The magnitude of these changes, however, is uncertain.

I answer - "How about my ruddy bum?"

-dale

Originally Posted by JAD_333

The globe has been getting warmer for some time now.

As it happens, the warming parallels a sustained period of growth of industrial activity and fossil fuel consumption.

People are correct to suspect a cause and effect link between these two concurrent phenomena.

However, the suspicion has not been fully substantiated. Science has yet to
determined without a doubt that CO2 emissions from human activity is the primary cause of global warmng.

Lol. How about, the globe has been getting warmer for some considerable time, since the 1650's in fact.

Recently, a study was done that compared the long term running mean of average temperatures over the northern hemisphere with specific data taken primarily from north American temperature recordings over IIRC 70 years(?) and grafted those precise (sic) readings onto that long term running average over 1000 years. Because there was variance between the averaged long term data and the precise (sic) short term data, the IPCC used the report (Mann et al) to state that the globe was heating up faster than the natural background warming occuring.

To back up that statement, they used a number of computer models. See Dale if you want an analysis of those models, suffice it to say that they're no longer trotted out as 'truth' as their predictions since 1997 have failed to reflect reality. Hence my post on this thread recently

Originally Posted by KEVIN Trenberth

"None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.

"The state of the oceans, sea ice and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

"There is neither an El Nino sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond . . . the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors" and "regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialised".

GCMs "assume linearity" which "works for global forced variations, but it cannot work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle . . . the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate".

KEVIN Trenberth is head of the large US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory high priests of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


Despite Mann's methodology and data both being under question, and none of the predictive models as Trenberth stated " corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate" the IPCC report (you'll note it's the only report Tanq et al can trot out as actual evidence) was used as a basis for the great human induced global warming myth, Al Gore et al, where every report of a cyclone, every glacial calving, every extraordinary weather event was put down to those nasty carbon emitters.
Darfur as an example? The UN, sponsors of the IPCC, assert Darfur is a global warming event. Truly.

So, to the CO2 produced by humans having an effect. Sum total of human produced greenhouse gases? Somewhere between 0.035% to 0.09% of the total produced by the planet. Science that proves this amount has an effect on the global climate? Supposition only.
Now wait for the pretty little power point demonstrations about how something so small as to be statistically irrelevant really can be the cause of all our ills, if only you'd have faith.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

How 'bout :...

However, the suspicion has not been fully substantiated. Science has yet to
determine without a doubt (and never will) that CO2 emissions from human activity are the primary cause (or even a major cause) of global warming.

Well, never say never, but if science hasn't got it nailed down by now with all its fancy instruments and big funding, it may never.