Global Warming Myth Debunked Again... By Science!
Proper climate scientists with PhDs in the subject… say they have “debunked” a climate change “myth” which is commonly repeated on the internet.
The myth in question is the idea that global warming is causing an increase in the number of tropical cyclones/hurricanes. Certainly there’s plenty of support among bloggers for that idea:
THE MYTH:
“Global warming and the future of storms … hurricanes will become more frequent” - The Guardian, “Climate Consensus”
“The North Atlantic Ocean Basin has been in a more active period of tropical cyclones since 1995” – Climate Central
But it’s not true, according to Professor Stefan Grab and postdoc researcher Jennifer Fitchett of Witwatersrand university in South Africa. The two scientists write:
THE SCIENCE:
By analysing three storm track records spanning periods of 66–161 years, we establish that much of the perceived change in storm numbers can be attributed to improvements in storm detection methods over the past century.
The new study is published in the International Journal of Climatology. The “debunk” and “myth” quotes are from a Witwatersrand uni announcement highlighting that research and another paper by Fitchett, which suggests that winter frosts in South Africa are set to become more damaging. ®
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,598,789,917 |
| Stories: | 8,137,175 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
actually, science says you couldnt be more wrong…
pull your head out idiot.. the science is in
Accept climate science and act
http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/accept-climate-science-and-act,6229
Science you say, Anonymous? Lets have at it then. My question for you is why do 96.7% of the climate models warm faster than the observations?
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/90-climate-temperature-models-v-observatons-628×353.jpg
Could i then ask how, in your opinion, science might explain why it has been warmer for most of the last 10,000 years than it is today? In light of your claim, of course.
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/GISP-last-10000-years.png
Is this what you mean, Anonymous? Empirical Data.
AGW is a myth and you attempt to perpetuate this hoax. Climate change is forever or until we are told otherwise. And it is the grand cycle that has always been for as long as we can tell. Lets just look at the last, oh, four hundred thoudand years, or so.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif
I showed you mine. What you got, Anonymous? I will hazard a guess if you like.
thoudand, lol. And then there’s this from your link…
“the failure of the model to explain why global average surface air temperatures did not rise as expected between 2001 and 2013″ Dr Adnan Al-Daini.
Al-Dummy if you ask me. “Did not rise as expected” is one way to describe cooling i suppose. Cold is the new Hot and we must pay because 97% of scientists agree that it’s 95% probably all our fault.
Too funny by half.
your comprehension difficulties are no proof of your nonsense, mayhem.
apt non de plume as its obvious your cognisant reasoning ability is undergoing extreem stress..
the fact you can not comprehend basic concepts is no ones fault but your own.
must try harder.
your arguments lack logic..
http://blog.thesietch.org/2009/07/07/the-logical-absurdity-of-climate-change-denial/
what an absolute clown you are…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming
http://www.mdconnects.com/articles/264/20140121/arctic-warmth-unprecedented-44-000-years-reveals-samples-ancient-moss.htm
http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/2013-was-worlds-fourth-warmest-year–and-australias-hottest–on-record,6091
*nom de plume – scuse, meh.
You’re right, Anonymous, i’m nowhere near as smart as i try to make out. Can i do this one step at a time?
Your first link, Anonymous, an opinion piece. I kid you not: i read it and it was attempting to argue that the denier mind is flawed. The opinion failed to do anything of the sort and amounted to a big long pout. Whining about how we are all so mean to be claiming this AGW myth as a hoax. Is this what you call science? You’ve got to be kidding!
My comprehension is just fine and i have a couple of days to spare. Stick around, Anonymous, for we are most definitely going to see exactly what you have got. I hope it’s your best because it’ll need to be.
PS something to ponder till i return. Can you give me the only definition for science that withstands all test? Hint; 7 words.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html
opinion piece? – lol – thats your unqualified worthless opinion.
empirical evidence – Derived from experiment and observation rather than theory
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/scientists-more-certain-ever-climate-change-report-says-n39661
http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/environment/warming-slowdown-likely-to-be-brief-1.1654102
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-extreme-weather-met-20140228,0,2078867.story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X9JeMmLMnO0
Yes that is my unqualified and worthless opinion which anyone can see for themselves by reading your initial offering. Bombard away, Anonymous, your material is appreciated and will make the role i have assumed so much easier. I’ll now turn my attention toward your other offerings, lets see what your’e made of eh?
Anonymous, your pen name is like all this ‘science’ that ‘Changers’ always reference. They throw out a report name, a scientist name, and walk on. FYI, most of those ‘studies’ are based on data that does NOT say what the report calculated. If I give you the numbers of 2, 3, 4 – and you issue a report that says 1,2,5 = 8, you can’t extrapolate or ‘upgrade’ errors or ‘adjust’ the data. If you pulled that hogwash with Engineering, and a building collapsed, you’d see really fast, that testing ‘a batch of concrete’ isn’t the same as testing ‘a sample from THE batch of concrete you are using in the building’s structure’. When you legally can’t do in civil engineering what you are doing in ‘climate science’, then you have a new religion, complete with Pope Al Gore leading it all. Sorry, but you’re gonna get a really bad ‘Crusade’ out of this, before it’s over with – and then, we’ll be back with that geocentric planetary model for another 1000 years – all because you fools tried to ram a lie down everyone’s throat so that you could generate CLIMATE CARBON TAX JUSTIFICATION, and in the end, THAT is what this is all about. If it were only about ‘free love and save the planet’, you’d start on that plastic dump called the Pacific Ocean, and clean it first – for free – before the planet ecosystem collapses.
Nope, no taxes or profit in that, THAT’S why you and the rest of your simian-’Changers’ are ignoring it, COMPLETELY.
@Dustdevil… How come we can agree on so much, you and i, but there’s that one big thing that stands between us? I don’t really know everything, case in point, but i want to. Help me out, mate, what’s your take? How come, that is?
“Hurricane Sandy is an example of the extreme weather symptomatic of continued climate change, as storms continue to become more frequent” <<< but, but, Sandy was never greater than category 3, and it made landfall as a category 1. 80 mile per hour winds.
The surge coincided with high tide, and when you live on the seashore, you are going to be in the ocean sooner or later. Sandy is an example of the large numbers of people living in flood prone areas, due to federally subsidized insurance.
Hurricanes are not more frequent, and they are not stronger. Camille in 1969 broke the wind gauges, after being measured at 190 mph sustained winds. NOT kilometers per hour, MILES per hour.
The Labor Day hurricane of 1935 was another monstrously powerful storm.
A simple check of past hurricane seasons, at wikipedia, shows you we don't have more storms or more powerful ones.
Those are facts. Science is about facts, not about what people claim or predict.
The Earth hasn't gotten warmer in 17 years. None of the weather you see can be attributed to warming of the Earth.
“The Earth hasn’t gotten warmer in 17 years. None of the weather you see can be attributed to warming of the Earth.”
youll be posting a lord monckton link as evidence next…
heres 50 cents, go rent a clue..
Actually I was quoting the IPCC. The global warming alarmists’ Mother Ship. THEY say there has been no warming in 17 years.
“The Earth hasn’t gotten warmer in 17 years. None of the weather you see can be attributed to warming of the Earth.”
There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.
It’s not happening
“…these global warming studies that now we’re seeing (are) a bunch of snake oil science.” (Sarah Palin)
…. well, she can see russia from her kitchen window, so maybe there is some doubt…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm
“But it’s not true, according to Professor Stefan Grab and postdoc researcher Jennifer Fitchett of Witwatersrand university in South Africa. The two scientists write:”
i cant find a peer review of this anywhere..
but here is something that is irrefutable…
Study Details Dark Money Flowing to Climate Science Denial
Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle’s long-awaited, peer-reviewed study “Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations” was published Dec. 20 in the journal Climatic Change.
The Drexel press release, “Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort” gives a quick introduction to the findings:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/12/23/detailed-study-exposes-dark-money-flows-climate-science-denial
carry on, useful idiots.
Correct, Lifels, bravo Senor.
Hahahahah Anonymous
skepticalscience.com is a warmist site
no real scientific evidence there.
@Anonymous:
Okay then here we go, Your skeptical science link is a statistical analysis that proves only that there is a 97% consensus. I’m not concerned about this in the slightest. It’s AGW we are discussing and i’m asking you for proof. You keep giving me opinion that is unsupported by any empirical data.
I provide the data sans statistical analysis and you ignore it out of hand. Way to debate, Anonymous, not.
Their conclusion:
Of over 12,000 papers around 4,000 were found to express an opinion on the cause of AGW and that it was our fault. This looks a lot more like a third, to me, and nothing like the 97.1% claimed. But i see that all the papers that mentioned nothing about said cause were dismissed. Because it’s obvious they didn’t mention the cause seeing how everyone already knows so it’s not worth repeating.
You have to be kidding me, Anonymous, i do know how they got to this giddy number, 97.1%. they fudged the data and proved the old saying. There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics.
Lets look at what else you have. My word you’re a prolific little strategist but i’ve read Alinsky too so i’ll patiently pound you under with the truth irrespective few might be reading this.
The, chicago tribune article claims “melting arctic ice” but provides no evidence for the claim. Lets look at the data.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
We clearly see that the current data is right on the margin of error and obviously shows that there is less ice than the 1981-2010 Average. Nothing too far out of the ordinary considering.
Considering that this average includes 16 years of the most recent warming period (1981- 1997). No one is denying climate change, Anonymous, i merely deny that it’s our fault.
I wonder where the ice and snow went? Polar vortex anyone? How’s winter been treating the contigous USA? Can the Arctic have it’s weather back already? Remember that Al Gore told us there’d be no ice in the Arctic by now, at least during the summer months.
The conclusion of this particular article from a tabloid is this:
In their opinion there “Could be cold hanging out for a long time, or warm hanging out for a long time, or rainy or dry. It depends.” Talk about hedging your bets.
Your claim, Anonymous, really amounts to: 97% of AGW computer models agreeing that the observations are wrong. There’s folk who’d delight in catching me out, Anonymous, and you too are welcome to try to prove my summaries false or mis-leading. You have nothing so far, but i’ll check out of respect for you and anybody reading.
What else do you have?
This from your epic post…
“These measurements are made with a variety of monitoring systems, which gives added confidence in the reality that Earth’s climate is warming”
Mine are made with HadCRUT4 and UAH, care to argue those, Anonymous? No? Thought so.
FFS Anonymous, more opinion or old data. Correct me if i’m wrong but your second Skeptical Science piece is 5 years old. I won’t even read it in preference for more current data. My bad.
Is this all about the recent IPCC release, Anonymous? We can go there, no worries, but you’ll have to bring it up lest i argue the strawman.
As for your second reference to the ‘desmobolg’ can i just say. Where’s my share? I get nothing from this, Anonymous, i do it so that anyone reading can see truth win, again and again, and how it is easily achieved.
I laughed with merriment at your feeble attempts to taunt me, Anonymous. We shall see who the absolute clown with the unqualified, illogical and worthless opinion is. If i’ve missed any of the evidence i keep asking for be sure to point it out for me. I’m not going to bother with much more in the way of opinion pieces.
Science. Define it so that i might find you worthy of my efforts, Anonymous. You’ve provided none so far.
the old data is just as true as the new idiot.
heres more science for ya. as far as your assertion that theres been no warming..
—
Is the climate warming?
Yes. Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F)
since 1900, with much of this increase taking place since the mid-1970s
(figure 1a)
.
A wide range of other observations (such as reduced Arctic sea ice extent and increased
ocean heat content) and indications from the natural world (such as poleward shifts
of temperature-sensitive species of fish, mammals, insects, etc.) together provide
incontrovertible evidence of planetary-scale warming.
The clearest evidence for surface warming comes from widespread thermometer records. In some places, these records extend back to the late 19th century. Today, temperatures are monitored at many thousands of locations, over both the land and ocean surface. Indirect estimates of temperature change from such sources as tree rings and ice cores help to place recent temperature changes in the context of the past. In terms of the average surface temperature of Earth, these indirect estimates show that 1983 to 2012 was
probably the warmest 30-year period in more than 800 years.
A wide range of other observations provides a more comprehensive picture of warming throughout the climate system. For example, the lower atmosphere and the upper layers of the ocean have also warmed, snow and ice cover are decreasing in the Northern Hemisphere, the Greenland ice sheet is shrinking, and sea level is rising
[Figure 1b].
These measurements are made with a variety of monitoring systems, which
gives added confidence in the reality that Earth’s climate is warming.”
—-
http://www.universetoday.com/109831/climate-change-is-now-more-certain-than-ever-new-report-says/
“Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. So begins the latest report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Kingdom’s Royal Society. The two institutions agree: climate change is not only indisputable, it’s largely the result of human activities.
The bulk of the 36-page report is presented in a question-and-answer format, making it a good bed-side read. But in case you don’t want to have nightmares about surging temperatures or polar bears alone on breaking ice caps, we’ll leaf through the intriguing points here.
In a forward to the report, Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, and Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society argue that multiple lines of evidence show that humans are changing Earth’s climate. This is now more certain than ever.
They are careful to include a caveat: “The evidence is clear. However, due to the nature of science, not every single detail is ever totally settled or completely certain. Nor has every pertinent question yet been answered.” Areas of active debate include how much warming to expect in the future and the connections between climate change and extreme weather events such as the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, droughts and floods.
Earth’s global average surface temperature has risen as shown in this plot of combined land and ocean measurements from 1850 to 2012, derived from three independent analyses of the available data sets. The temperature changes are relative to the global average surface temperature of 1961?1990. Source: IPCC AR5, data from the HadCRUT4 dataset (black), UK Met Office Hadley Centre, the NCDC MLOST dataset (orange), US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the NASA GISS dataset (blue), US National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Earth’s global average surface temperature has risen as shown in this plot of combined land and ocean measurements from 1850 to 2012, derived from three independent analyses of the available data sets. Image Credit: National Academy of Sciences / The Royal Society
But the first question: is the climate warming? goes without debate. Yes. Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1900, and the last 30 years have been the warmest in 800 years. It’s the most rapid period of sustained temperature change in the scale of global history, trumping every ice age cycle.
Remove this ad
Recent estimates of the increase in global temperature since the end of the last ice age are four to five degrees Celsius. While this is much greater than the 0.8 degree Celsius change recorded over the last 100+ years, this change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years. So the change in rate is now 10 times faster.
Of course an increase in temperature goes hand in hand with an increase in carbon emissions. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide absorb heat (infrared radiation) emitted from the Earth’s surface. Increases in the atmospheric concentrations of these gases trap most of the outgoing heat, causing the Earth to warm. Human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels have increased carbon dioxide concentrations by 40 percent between 1880 and 2012. It is now higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years.
And if the rise in carbon emissions continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the last ice age can be expected by the end of this century.
The report continues to ask more controversial questions. Take as an example the question: Does the recent slowdown of warming mean that climate change is no longer happening? The short answer is no. Decades of slow warming and accelerated warming occur naturally in the climate system. Despite the slower rate of warming the 2000’s were still warmer than the 1990’s
The new report builds upon the long history of climate-related work from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So while some have argued it doesn’t add anything new to the wealth of climate science data available, it does help make that data more succinct and available to the public. Its goal is to help inform decision makers, policy makers, educators and all other individuals.
The report concludes by noting available options to citizens and governments. They can simply wait and accept the losses, they can change their pattern of energy production, they can attempt to adapt to environmental changes as much as possible, or they can seek as yet unproven geoengineering solutions.
No matter which option we choose, one thing remains certain: the Earth is warming at a tremendous rate and we are the cause.
The paper is available for download here.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/ ”
you wouldnt recognise evidence if it jumped up and bit you on the ar5e idiot..
I notice your voting and must say that it is fine with me. It is the truth that you foolishly deny, Anonymous, and i have nothing to offer for your dilemma given your willful ignorance. You have little purpose for your eye’s it seems. I see a pitiable waste of oxygen.
Care to answer any of my questions? Even if only one of them, it’d be a start, Anonymous.
Need i repeat myself, what tactic is this? I write all my work out the proper way (with two fingers) you cut-n-paste from your sources. Alinsky-ite distraction-alism.
I think it’s about time you took a turn at proving any of my assertions incorrect, Anonymous, i need not deflect you at every turn. You’ve already shown us you’re full of it.
You did, however, reference the IPCC. Good puppet, lets go there. Standby my inadequate troll. And FYI, we can say arse, it’s all good.
Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Sir Paul Nurse are careful to include a caveat: “The evidence is clear. However, due to the nature of science, not every single detail is ever totally settled or completely certain. Nor has every pertinent question yet been answered.”
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/109831/climate-change-is-now-more-certain-than-ever-new-report-says/#ixzz2uekHMgN9
What pertinent questions? The same ones i’m asking you, Anonymous. Anything you’d like to share? No? Thought so.
i cut and paste because im not a scientist, however i am living with the consequences of climate change daily, such as living through extreme heatwaves..
Nature Stunner: As Climate Change Speeds Up, The Number Of Extremely Hot Days Is Soaring
http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/346681/nature-stunner-climate-change-speeds-number-extremely-hot-days-soaring
” I write all my work out the proper way (with two fingers)”
your unqualified opinion is no rebuttal of any of the empirical evidence that is offered in abundance at the links i have provided.
you can not, in any reasonableness, deny climate change, or by any logic, presume that man can keep polluting this planet and that it will have no adverse effects.
you can however keep regurgitating the same old tired BS that there is absolutely nothing to worry about.. despite all the evidence – and science – to the contrary.
your opinion is worthless, find me a peer reviewed scientific study that says there climate is not changing, and ill look at that.
I mentioned the strawman argument a while ago you Alinsky-ite you. Here’s your classic example.
“you can not, in any reasonableness, deny climate change, or by any logic, presume that man can keep polluting this planet”
…………………… I DO NOT DENY CLIMATE CHANGE ……………….
You’re the first to mention pollution and you attribute my point of view of it, on my behalf, without even asking me. You may not put words in my mouth. You debate poorly yet i’m the idiot/moron.
……………………. POLLUTION IS ILLOGICAL ………………………
… anything else i can clear up, dummy?
“…………………… I DO NOT DENY CLIMATE CHANGE ……………….”
you dont deny climate change? then why are you arguing with me?
“……………………. POLLUTION IS ILLOGICAL ………………………”
what?
As far as i’m concerned we are arguing the evidence for AGW and against the irrefutable fact that it has been warmer for most of the last ten thousand years than it is today.
No wonder it’s not going well for you, you might be the only one confused about the topic, Anonymous.
The problem is, how could anyone deny climate change? What the hell does it mean exactly? There is 0 evidence linking CO2 levels to temperature either way.
This AGW BS distracts us from the real environmental problems like RADIATION, CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS, GENITICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISISMS, ETC, ETC….
I guess that explains why the major contributors to organizations that promote AGW are big oil, mining and timber…
“I guess that explains why the major contributors to organizations that promote AGW are big oil, mining and timber…”
lol… i dont think so..
big oil is supporting the fact that fossil fuels are destroying the planet? – thats like the tobacco companies paying to say smoking kills..
im not saying CO2 is the sole culprit.. but i am saying, there is a lot of evidence that says the planets climate is changing. the evidence is in the links ive posted, but you do need to be able to read, and you do need a functioning cognisant ability, and you do need to have not had a lobotomy..
thats why mayhem struggles..
Why don’t you go to the TNC website and at the list of million dollar contributors and then come back.
What is climate change exactly? what’s the definition?
Fossil Fuel?? Really? Another Big Oil myth. The Soviets disproved that crap in the 50′s
Spot on, Stormy, i too would be a fool to deny climate change. Permit me the opportunity to attempt an answer to your question… “What is climate change exactly?”
Climate change is weather patterns measured over an extensive time frame.
Anonymous is saying… “there is a lot of evidence that says the planets climate is changing. the evidence is in [his] links”
I’m saying i can’t find this, evidence, anywhere in your links Anonymous. I skimmed a few items and didn’t see anything to support your fallacy. What have i missed?
“Fossil Fuel?? Really? Another Big Oil myth. The Soviets disproved that crap in the 50′s”
im not saying oil comes from compressed dinosaurs.. and maybe the soviets were right.. doesnt make any difference to the effect it has when you put it through a combustion engine..
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
re funding the denial…
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/12/23/detailed-study-exposes-dark-money-flows-climate-science-denial
@Anonymous You used the term fossil fuel and you don’t believe it??
I’m still looking for a scientific definition of climate change. How long has there been reliable climate measurements? 300 yrs at the most?
what is climate change..
here is some already observable changes.. due to climate
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/climate-change-ar4/l-3/4-observed-impacts.htm#0p0
just because the lumpen cant find evidence, doesnt mean its not there.. all you need do is open your eyes and look around.
“@Anonymous You used the term fossil fuel and you don’t believe it??”
i used the term fossil fuel as it is generally accepted to mean oil, like i said, it may indeed be abiogenic, but that doesnt change what happens when you burn the stuff..
now if you have any other point, other than the one on the top of your head…
Do you understand the difference between cause and effect? Effects don’t prove anything! There’s no data to compare current climate to what is normal.
“I’m still looking for a scientific definition of climate change. How long has there been reliable climate measurements? 300 yrs at the most?”
actually, climate data is able to be retrieved from thousands of years ago i understand.. with things like ice core samples.. and studying fossils etc.. all gives clues, did you just pull the 300 year figure out your cloaca?
scientific definition of climate change
You say “with things like ice core samples” and yet this is the exact same data i referenced in my opening gambit. Thanks for taking me seriously, Anonymous, not.
Wow!!! a link to google. Your funny… You realize that ice core samples prove that there is no relation to CO2 and temperature.
Apparently you don’t have an answer to a simple question..
” There’s no data to compare current climate to what is normal.”
lol – idiot.
“Thanks for taking me seriously”
lol again.. as if..
ive lived for quite a few decades.. as i imagine so have you. now if you are even half as observant as i am… you would notice changes in the climate that i have. seasons starting earlier.. longer droughts, more extreme longer heatwave.
but perhaps you live in an are where there havnt been such extreme changes.
some places might actually benefit from a change.. deserts may get more water.. but for other places, the consequences can be more negative, and some catastrophic.
fact is, where i live, things have changed.. its undeniable. thats climate change, caused by whatever.. if you want to pretend otherwise, fine by me, i dont care how stupid you make yourself look to everyone.
“You realize that ice core samples prove that there is no relation to CO2 and temperature.”
because you say so?
pardon me if i prefer to put my trust in credible scientists rather than your unqualified opinion.
“Apparently you don’t have an answer to a simple question..”
the link to google was simply to highlight the fact that is was such a simple, pointless question.. you, like mayhem.. really do struggle to come up with anything concrete ..
can you show me – one piece of data that you use, to prove to you beyond all reasonable doubt that climate change is just in the imagination of all the scientists.. and that the seasons are not getting earlier/ later.. that extreme record breaking weather events are not happening .. maybe all the birds that migrate early are in on this conspiracy, and that the worls oceans are warming.. as part of a global plot…
Well I can’t deny the “science” behind that. You should try reading “Age of Reason”, by Thomas Paine.
All of the evidence you promote is simply shows effects. All you talk about is effect. Do I think Humans are affecting the climate? yes. Is there any proof it’s a result of increased levels of CO2? NO! Nothing you have provided proves anything.
“lol – idiot… if you want to pretend otherwise, fine by me, i dont care how stupid you make yourself look to everyone.”
I don’t know if you know what website you are on, but this is a conspiracy forum. Might I suggest you try:
Yahoo.com
CNN.com
MSNBC.com
“All of the evidence you promote is simply shows effects. All you talk about is effect. Do I think Humans are affecting the climate? yes. Is there any proof it’s a result of increased levels of CO2? NO! Nothing you have provided proves anything.”
ffs idiot.. yes.. the effect of climate change, or global warming. so you dont deny it.. that is the point i am making here, that this article is BS.
i have never said that CO2 is the sole culprit, cause.. or even the main one. what i have said.. is.
“and i have said, CO2 may not be the sole culprit.. but anyone who claims that we can pollute this planet endlessly without it having a detrimental effect.. is a moron.”
so it seems that you and mayhem both agree that there is climate change.. well good onya! well done! thats the only point i was making, contrary to this article that claims it to be a myth.
The climate changes everyday. I’m simply asking for a scientific explanation of what defines “climate change”. If CO2 isn’t the cause then what is? And what do we do to attempt to reverse the effects?
“The climate changes everyday. I’m simply asking for a scientific explanation of what defines “climate change”. If CO2 isn’t the cause then what is? And what do we do to attempt to reverse the effects?”
no – the climate doesnt change every day.. thats called weather.. weather changes every day..
i gave you a link to what defines climate change scientifically.. you laughed at it..
you want “MY” opinion on what i think? why? im not a scientist?
if CO2 isnt the cause.. what is? you ask..
im not saying it isnt the cause. im not saying it is. im saying something is.. but articles like this, that deny there is anything to worry about.. are no help..
to find out the cause.. first the silly debate over if it is or isnt happening has to end first..
but there is a lot or credible support that shows why CO2 may be a contributing factor..
ive given links.. all im saying is, though it may not be.. continually pumping pollution into the atmosphere certainly cant be helping
” And what do we do to attempt to reverse the effects?”
nicola tesla had the answer to that a long time ago i believe
So are you saying climate change and global warming are the same thing?
How can we agree on an effect without knowing the cause? That’s silly!
CO2 is a pollutant? Try again…
“So are you saying climate change and global warming are the same thing?”
years ago.. when it was commonly referred to as global warming, it was predicted there would be much more extreme weather.
recently .. there has been a lot of reports of just such events.
the climate is changing.
do i think they are the same thing? well, as inconsequential as what i think is.. no.. i think global warming means the planet is getting hotter.. – and if you take into account the credible scientific reports ive linked to – it is.
climate change, means the climate is changing.. hotter, longer droughts, colder winters, bigger floods.. warmer oceans.. etc.. irrefutable..
i dont think they are the same thing, but it would be a bit silly to think they were not related.
the thing is though… even if we stopped polluting tomorrow.. the adverse effects of all our pollution from today, is still going to get worse before it starts to get better..
if CO2 is not the problem – well stopping putting it into the atmosphere wont hurt.. if it is the problem.. then we are all fecked
“CO2 is a pollutant? Try again…”
yeah ok.. sorry.. CO2.. isnt a pollutant.. like i said.. im not a scientist.. however.. the carbon from burning fuel.. is..
i suppose youve seen pics of china recently..
and though CO2 may not in itself be un natural, or a pollutant.. too much of anything.. is an inbalance, and will certainly have an affect. thats simply logical.
if you suddenly increase the oxygen in the air.. it will have an effect..
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-QA.pdf
Q: CO2 is already in the atmosphere naturally, so why are emissions from human activity significant?
A: In nature, CO2 is exchanged continually between the atmosphere, plants and animals through photosynthesis, respiration, and decomposition, and between the atmosphere and ocean through gas exchange. A very small amount of CO2 (roughly 1% of the emission rate from fossil fuel combustion) is also emitted in volcanic eruptions. This is balanced by an equivalent amount that is removed by chemical weathering of rocks.
The CO2 level in 2012 was about 40% higher than it was in the nineteenth century. Most of this CO2 increase has taken place since 1970, about the time when global energy consumption accelerated.
Measured decreases in the fraction of other forms of carbon (the isotopes 14C and 13C) and a small decrease in atmospheric oxygen concentration (observations of which have been available since 1990) show that the rise in CO2 is largely from combustion of fossil fuels (which have low 13 C fractions and no 14 C). Deforestation and other land use changes have also released carbon from the biosphere (living world) where it normally resides for decades to centuries. The additional CO2 from fossil fuel burning and deforestation has disturbed the balance of the carbon cycle, because the natural processes that could restore the balance are too slow compared to the rates at which human activities are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. As a result, a substantial fraction of the CO2 emitted from human activities accumulates
in the atmosphere, where some of it will remain not just for decades or centuries, but for thousands of years. Comparison with the CO2 levels measured in air extracted from ice cores indicates that the current concentrations are higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years
Q: How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities?
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-QA.pdf
- i think these scientists have more credibility and qualifications than mayhem or omega..
@Anonymous. You speak about CO2 like there is too much of it and it is obvious you have no perspective let alone cognisance of the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.
CO2 in perspective: let me know if the math gets too heavy for you, Anonymous. Of the approximately 400ppm (0.04%) CO2 in our atmosphere it is estimated that our contribution is around 15ppm (0.0015%). That’s not perspective just observation. Put one million grains of rice in a clear container and throw in 15 grains, coloured bright red, and give it all a good shake. Now look, closely, for any sign of our involvement in AGW. Now that’s perspective, Heck chuck the other 385 bright red grains of rice in and see if your chances improve much.
You’ll not answer any of my questions but will you at least consider them. Why can i grow grass on a pile of coal but not a pile of pertiliser if carbon is so bad? Didn’t CO2 get the name ‘greenhouse gas’ when the dutch discovered that pumping the stuff into their greenhouses caused plants to grow more prolifically.
Finally and because even i’m getting tired of listening to my self; there’s up to 4% (400,000ppm) water vapour in the atmosphere that causes more effect on the weather and climate than anything you claim. They are called clouds silly.
Obviously i’m tired, 40,000ppm equals 4% and pertiliser?
@Anonymous, who said…
“the old data is just as true as the new idiot.”
Priceless, that’s just so funny. I did not question the data’s accuracy only it’s applicability given more recent information.
I’m the idiot?
too funny.. yes youre the idiot when you cant comprehend that recent data i have posted shows you to be a gormless lumpen.
dont you also believe in the bible? – i think ive seen posts here from you that say you do..
empirical evidence? idiot. pull your head out.
This from your epic post…
“These measurements are made with a variety of monitoring systems, which gives added confidence in the reality that Earth’s climate is warming”
Mine are made with HadCRUT4 and UAH, care to argue those, Anonymous? No? Thought so. I use nsidc data, truth can not be beaten despite your foolish protestations. Truth hardly needs my help, for by your own words, Anonymous, by your own words.
What’s my beliefs got to do with AGW? Alinsky explains the value of the ad-hominem, nicely, Anonymous. Here’s to you with all due respect.
your beliefs show you to be willing to believe without proof.
you take one quote out of all the evidence out there,, and then say..
“Mine are made with HadCRUT4 and UAH”
well what the hell is that gibberish? you think that simple statement debunks the reality that people are living with now? farming communities are suffering, because they can not continue to farm what they traditionally have, because of changes to the climate.. such evidence is all around.. your gibberish doesnt make it disappear..
like i said.. put up or shut up..
find me a peer reviewed scientific paper that shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the consensus is that climate change isnt happening..
fact is moron.. you will not be able to..
like your belief in the bible.. doesnt matter how many facts youre bashed over your thick skull with.. youll still beli8eve your nonsense delusions
you should read a book, or get someone to help you.. or perhaps just a webpage, as to why your belief defies logic..
http://originalearthblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/the-logical-absurdity-of-climate-change-denial/
It’s obvious you have read Alinsky, thoroughly. I will not be goaded into trying to prove a lie, Anonymous, and better than you have done better than this. Anyone reading this can see my early posts. It’s up to them to decide what to think about all this.
I provide the recorded result from our observations. UAH refers to the satellite record and HadCRUT4 is the data from the ground. You cannot debunk that no matter how hard you try. Please try, i got a day and a half to go.
ohhh go cry ad hominem more ya little sook..
being a believer in the bible just shows you to be feeble minded.. and shows why its just as pointless showing you evidence for climate change, as it is that shows the bible to be BS.. you simply ignore it.
” It’s up to them to decide what to think about all this.”
exactly.. and the fact that i have a different opinion to this articles poster.. upset you so much you just had to jump in and tell me how wrong i am..
and no matter that i have shown you countless reasons why its not unreasonable to believe the worlds climate is undergoing extreme change, as reported almost daily with extreme record breaking weather events.. floods, droughts, storms.. heatwaves.. cold..
you prefer to think jesus will look after us all, so we neednt worry about it..
feckwit.
Nobody has denied the effects(climate change), If all you have is CO2 levels as a cause, your “proof” is seriously lacking.
“Nobody has denied the effects(climate change), If all you have is CO2 levels as a cause, your “proof” is seriously lacking.”
this whole article denies climate change ya fecking moron!
“Global Warming Myth Debunked Again”
and i have said, CO2 may not be the sole culprit.. but anyone who claims that we can pollute this planet endlessly without it having a detrimental effect.. is a moron.
By your own words, Anonymous, who said…
“and no matter that i have shown you countless reasons why its not unreasonable to believe the worlds climate is undergoing extreme change, as reported almost daily with extreme record breaking weather events”
… do you mean like this?…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/us-atlantic-hurricanes-insurance-idUSBRE9BB0A820131212
… but i do understand the (2013,2014) contiguous US winter has been a tad harsh.
Anonymous:
Usually the person that must resort to name calling and ‘bible bashing’ is the one who has been defeated.
Mayhem has got you with your pants down brother.
brother? i dont think so.
I’ts obvious you wouldn’t think so. In fact i wonder if you think at all. Omega Files is just telling you what we are all coming to learn on the blog-o-sphere and that is that Truth cain’t be beat. Poor effort, Anonymous.
“you should read a book”, Anony-mouse. More gems of wisdom, priceless. I like you, you entertain me.
truth cant be beat. first sensible thing youve said numpty.
You’re a snide little fellow. I was simply showing you respect.
tell someone who cares omega
Perhaps it is best to leave your emotions at the playground and debate like an honorable man?
You are not winning respect with that attitude, nor are you convincing anybody with your ‘evidence’.
im not after respect shi7forbrains, nor am i here to convince anyone of anything.
you can believe whatever you want, and it doesnt bother me either way, and if you want to ignore the opinion of credible scientific reports.. thats up to you.
“im not after respect shi7forbrains, nor am i here to convince anyone of anything.”
If you are not here for respect, and you are not here to convince anyone of anything – might I ask what you are doing?
All your credible scientific reports have been shot down. This isn’t a matter of anybody ignoring what you’ve provided. This is about the errors that have been found in your assessment of the information withing the reports. Ridiculing your opposition will not allow for these errors to simply disappear.
“might I ask what you are doing?”
im offering an opinion smegmabreath..
and all youve done is attack me.. youve made no reference at all to this article or the topic..
you pretentiously pious piece of shi7
“All your credible scientific reports have been shot down”
ummm really? show me where this report has been shot down
The paper is available for download here.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/ ”
“all youve done is attack me.. youve made no reference at all to this article or the topic”
… When did I ever attack you? Don’t get soft with me now. I asked you to debate like an honorable man. In fact, I think I remember introducing myself to you as a brother. Please show me where I attacked you. Must I point out all the names that you have called me thus far?
“show me where this report has been shot down”
… First off, this isn’t how a debate works. You don’t just send me the homepage to a biased organization and tell me to read through it to find you an error. After reading the homepage it becomes obvious that they are simply in line with the agenda that you are trying to push. There’s nothing new in this report that you haven’t provided in the other reports. These studies are heavily funded by those who have a vested interest in blaming us for what is really not our fault (in terms of being shut down – this has been brought to your attention prior to this). If you only study from one end of the spectrum, then you will never be able break free from the little mental cage that encloses your flawed beliefs. You can’t understand the system if you don’t step outside it. This report is biased, BROTHER. Try reading ‘Damned Lies and Statistics’ by Joel Best.
The site reads: “It echoes and builds upon the long history of climate-related work from both national academies, as well as on the newest climate-change assessment from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
“When did I ever attack you?”
um your first comment directed at me..
“Anonymous:
Usually the person that must resort to name calling and ‘bible bashing’ is the one who has been defeated.
Mayhem has got you with your pants down brother.”
or is that your definition of support?
who said i was having a debate with you idiot? – you said my evidence has been shot down.. i simply asked you to show me where.. if you cant do that.. shut the FU fool.
Yet you have the audacity to call me a sook? You’ve wadded up your undergarments, Anonymous, for those two jibes? I ask you, precious much? Omega Files! You’re being too mean with the poor fellow.
It’s another well known tactic to claim victim status, i’m sure few of us are surprised to see you doing just that. We’ve seen it before, more than a few times. This is a long thread and perhaps you have forgotten that you enjoyed the first say…
Anonymous:
“actually, science says you couldnt be more wrong…” (i dot imgur dot com)
“pull your head out idiot.. the science is in. Accept climate science and act” (independentaustralia dot net)
Everyone will decide for themselves who is hurling the abuse, Anonymous? By your very own words fool. Your challenge was accepted, you and your nonsense is defeated and just to rub it in.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html
@Anonymous who say’s…
“ohhh go cry ad hominem more ya little sook..”
… don’t concern yourself about my feelings, i’m all growed up. It’s scientific data supporting the myth that we are causing climate change that i’m interested in. Anything other than opinion will be examined for truth and exposed if found wanting.
Then he say’s…
“being a believer in the bible just shows you to be feeble minded..”
… please excuse my frailty.
This latest claim of yours, Anonymous, that the bible is BS will not stand critical analysis in just the same way that your claim of AGW does not. It is not for this debate and i need not prove God or Scripture. I can prove from the historical and archaeological record that Yes’hua was born, died and was resurrected. His testimony unequivocally testifies to the Truth of the Inspired Word and yes i do accept the opinion of our King in Highest regard. It’s got something to do with His 100% track record, no consensus required.
And finally…
“you just had to jump in and tell me how wrong i am..”
… correct, Anonymous. I just had to as soon as i heard you tell me that the science was in. Think again, buddy, and by your own words.
im not concerned in the least about your feelings… thats another mistake you made.
do you have any empirical evidence that noah put two kangaroos on the ark? – nuff said..
the science is in idiot.. only a fool would believe the climate is not changing, at an accelerated rate, than all previous changes.. ie; what previously took centuries to change, is now being recorded over decades..
the science is in.. as supported by the links ive provided ad nauseam.. credible science. lots of it..
all you have to do is look.
The audacity and naivety of people to assert that their guesses on human origins are fact and unquestionable even though they are based on hypothetical origins reveals arrogance that has no boundaries. So if an atheist (or scientist – whichever you prefer) and a believer in Messiah examine the same data but come to different conclusions, why is one called science and the other called faith?
If you want to bring ‘feelings’ and ‘beliefs’ in to this discussion, then I suggest you put on your battle gear and leave the small minded and insulting rhetoric behind.
If you choose to go down this path, there will be consequences.
“If you choose to go down this path, there will be consequences.”
lick me.
I thought so.
Indeed, Anonymous, we’re sick of it alright.
You keep banging on about the weather, Anonymous. Is this what we are here to discuss? Surely not! This your third or forth claim will also not withstand my scrutiny. Storms have neither increased in severity or frequency although it’s obvious the data will be under pressure given current events. AGW is your claim, i am interested in any evidence you may posses. So far i’ve seen nothing.
Seeing how you mentioned pollution, Anonymous, let me just add that all of the pollution that has ever been created in the entirety of our civilization’s historical record would not equate to that of a decent volcanic eruption. By decent i mean top five or six, cough.
The ice core data does so show just such a correlation. You lie now. The graph of the two data sets, in overlay, show unerring and inexorable symmetry. Anyone who cares to look at the data closely can readily see that CO2 follows climate change by about 400yrs. When it is warmer the planet releases more CO2, cause and effect show a logical and reasonable delay.
your scrutiny is unqualified and not credible…
write a report to refute this and get it published..
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-QA.pdf
then ill accept your scrutiny.
If everybody who wrote a report knew what they were talking about then we would have a lot more answers. And who are you to assume the level of our credibility? I don’t remember telling you my qualifications?
Forgive me, but I find your passion in defending these reports comical. I’m not interested in anything that you post. I’m just puling out the hypocrisy in your logic.
“And who are you to assume the level of our credibility? I don’t remember telling you my qualifications?”
its not an assumption.. its a reasonable deduction f’wit.
lol – pretending you have qualifications.. what a moron.. although i will concede you are certainly certifiable – idiot.
” I’m just puling out the hypocrisy in your logic.”
no .. what youre doing is trying to divert attention from the fact that you claim my sources have been shot down.. but are unable to show evidence of that..
hypocrite.
No need to hide behind your anonymous name tag, your intent is clear enough.
“No need to hide behind your anonymous name tag, your intent is clear enough.”
umm.. im as identifiable by posting as anonymous as you are by posting as omega idiot..
and still… unable to show how my evidence has been shot down.
what is my intent then? and what is yours? obviously your intent is not to contribute to the topic of climate change cause and effect at all..
you really shouldnt try to look clever.. it doesnt suit you.
“No need to hide behind your anonymous name tag, your intent is clear enough.”
theres no hiding here.. each of us is equally identifiable.. “theomegafiles33″
heres 50 cents, go rent a clue
33
Who the heck do you think you are, Anonymous, to make any such demands of my time. You dance to my tune, pup, i skittle your every argument, you show nothing.
Notice how i thrashed you while maintaining my composure? I was taught that, Anonymous and i feel directed, by my Editor in Chief, to show this gift in play. If i say anything of value it is not of me as i accept my limitations.
Are you still thinking that bringing up the Bible was a good way to attack? You have little idea what you’re messing with. Be afraid, be very afraid. Er… lol :SMILE:
The point being, Anonymous; there are dozens of you and only one each of the rest of us. It’s like debating with schizophrenics at times. You are hiding, nothing is more certain.
[email protected]
“So far i’ve seen nothing.”
thats because you walk around with your eyes closed.. ive posted this a few times already
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-QA.pdf
but regardless, you cant refute it, because youre not qualified.. ok.. you donrt believe people are responsible.. i get that.. but you also believe in jesus.. i get that too..
but the fact is.. you are not qualified to argue the case here.. you can offer your opinion.. but im not interested in that, because quite frankly, i think youre a loon..
but.. if you can show some relevant qualifications, and some of your scrutiny that has been peeer reviewed and published.. by all means.. bring it here..
but until then… ffs… youre a waste of space..
Anonymous,
*Human Global Warming is the biggest pile of bovine excrement in history*
I sh it you not.
Spend however much time you need to convince yourself otherwise.
( Be water my friend )
“I sh it you not. ”
gee.. its hard to argue against such empirical evidence as that….
if you say so.. it must be true that humans can pollute this planet as much as they like, they can cut down all the forests, and fly planes endlessly that cover the skies with artificial clouds..accidentally, or by intent.. and that none of this is going to have any affect on the planet whatsoever.
i guess we should just cut down all the trees then, and keep burning oil so we can all breath smog like the chinese..
” it must be true that humans can pollute this planet as much as they like, they can cut down all the forests, and fly planes endlessly that cover the skies with artificial clouds..accidentally, or by intent.. and that none of this is going to have any affect on the planet whatsoever.”
No my friend. We must take care of this earth.
Everything you just said is near and dear to my heart.
Surely you aren’t offering me a “denier” or “acceptor” stamp?
I might well attend this, tonight and i’ve still got all day tomorrow, Anonymous. If you’ve any nose hairs left that is? A pdf you say, yay, not!
We are all for sustainability and she’s a hard row to hoe finding many who don’t want to live in paradise on earth.
Everyone can see this thread finally garnering a little attention, Anonymous, now’s your chance. Impress us.
I call BS on the theory that “we just have better equipment now”
You can’t deny the increasing number of records being broken. As I’ve said before..just look at history! Not just the last hundred years, but the last couple thousand.
I always like to say IMO because that’s all it is and to each his own. Global Warming seemed like quick grab at the change in our couch cushions by the elite. That’s what they do! It’s kind of nice to see mother nature stick it to that theory ey? It’s not man made. THAT was how they were getting their foot in our front doors.
There was a period of warming, but it happens..it always has. It’s like a weeble wobble. It just hasn’t fallen down…yet!
Examine the phrase, “The Change in the Rate of Change”…
Say, from the end of the Industrial Revolution…
And then look at the Great Turning going on around you…
I have no doubt they aren’t capitalizing on it!
We are in an age of misinformation now my friend. The “turning” going on around us is multi directional. I think it’s just as foolish to ASSUME every bit of it is propaganda as it is to ASSUME there is none.
oops! meant ARE capitalizing on it!
Your criticism makes good point, snowl, and i can see that i was less than clear. I do not want to be mistaken for thinking that better equipment is the sole cause for our noticing more weather. I grant that the records have come under intense pressure this last year, hurricane season aside, and it will be interesting when the results are tabulated. We only do this annually, do you see, and is 12 months leeway too much to ask? We are discussing climate and not weather after all. Thank you for your input, i like clarity.
NO worries!
My input was more toward the OP and my personal observation on the subject as a whole. It would be nice if all sciences worked together on the subject, but then again that would be too revealing I guess.
Climate change is just earth and solar and other cycles. Yes I am sure we are not helping but we have to think in longer terms then simple human life spans, or even humans sentient birth of the mind and civilization. There are cycles with in cycles that all effect each other and we have no clue about the long picture because we do not have all the pieces to the puzzle.
The solar cycle effects the planets climate, the 11/22 year max and min cycle, then we have the planets chandler wobble cycle ( that has changed some what ) we also have the cycles of the solar system, the galaxy and who knows what else. The ice cores show significant change in cycles for how ever long they go back, we have had times of extreme co2 in the atmosphere, we have also had times of extreme Oxygen content.
The weather can change from a simple axis change making new regions of where the climate is effects. We have proof that the equator has moved a few times, when that happens the whole world had to adjust to their new position in relation to the star we depend on. New arid deserts were born, different areas were submerged under water and so on.
Yes we have an effect on the planet, NO were are not the only reason everything is changing, here is a link showing research into the possible solar effects on the planets temp it has some interesting work. It is not the smoking gun for all questions but it gives you something else to consider in this debate ~
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
Another thing to look into is the axis change and the wobble, there are plenty of things to find on the net but I found this site quite good, until it stopped being updated in 2006. So it is older research but it gives a nice launch pad for what to look for in terms of recent data.
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthmonitor/polarmotion/2006_wobble_anomaly.htm
http://www.earthchanges-bulletin.com/
Here is a link showing what they “say” is current data on the polar motion
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/
This is not all to say that our actions and pollution are not effecting the planet, and even the weather. Everything is connected so it is foolish to think there is no effect, just it is not the only driving force behind what they call climate change.
I personally think they noticed the planets axis was changing and was going to be an unstoppable force that will change the world as we know it. If you go back and look at data from the last 20 years of major earth quakes they mention how the planets axis sifted by so much each time, when we get to our point in time we have a significant change from what it was in 1900. This polar vortex ~IMO~ is simply ( yet is is far from simple ) because we are tipping more and the north has seemed to move south, but it is because the planets position has changed leaving us with a cold mess that should be in arctic Canada.
These are just more things to take into consideration when going about this particular debate. Just supposing that all the effects being seen on the planet now are only due to human actions is foolish and you do your self a dis service by ignoring all the other possible factors in a these major earth change’s, it is not just the weather.
@Anonymous who said…
“so it seems that you and mayhem both agree that there is climate change.. well good onya! well done! thats the only point i was making”
… just because your lot won’t use the correct terminology does not lend the ability for you to hide your true intent. It is AGW that you support and your only evidence is that we cannot deny climate change. Pitiable defeatist obfuscation. You suck at this.
Dear Anonyous,
Count me in for agreeing “there is climate change”. (Always has, always will be)
Your faith is strong in the new commandment that “the weather is changing”.
(How could anyone disagree with such a powerful prime thought?)
This article is specifically directed towards “Human caused global warming”
( I’d be watching the sun for any real insights but what would I know? )
You can bet your carbon based life-form that if it continues to cool that this will “be global warming too” . Wait… they’ve already pasted “change” in there to avoid having to stick to warmer.
( Can’t you smell what the “rock” is cooking? )
http://www.csvgc-ny.org/content/view/32/40/
Propaganda science is so well-advanced, folks are afraid to mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They know they’ll be laughed at. Eyes will roll. They will hear “small men with big ideas” being muttered.
But this cannot be refuted. There has never been (1) an experiment or (2) an observation by operators of kilns or power plants or industry — showing a warm substance getting warmer as a result of “back radiation” from a COOLER substance.
There will never be a post here showing any evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
Heat does not flow from colder substances to warmer ones.
AGW depends on heat from the very cold stratosphere, warming the warmer air below it.
And subsequently warming the ocean and the ground.
The same heat that left the surface by convection of the air. And by radiation.
If the atmosphere didn’t cool the earth, the earth would not have a solid crust. It would be molten, from its heat of formation.
AGW depends on man-made C02 (a small fraction of total C02) increasing water vapor in the atmosphere, by increasing evaporation at the surface. Because C02 is such a small part of the atmosphere. AGW theory depends on increased water vapor to “trap” heat.
AGW theory DEPENDS on an increase of water vapor. It was predicted. Computer models of global warming DEPEND on it. And it has not happened. So, the computer models are useless.
THAT is science. And not refutable by any evidence.
The atmosphere is opaque at the relevant infrared wavelengths, mostly because of water vapor. When you increase humidity, you increase the thermal mass. But you don’t “trap” more heat.
The thermal mass of the atmosphere is minute, compared with the thermal mass of the ocean and the surface of the land. The atmosphere would radiate its heat into space in days, were it not heated from below.
And, by the way, physicist Robert W. Wood, in 1909, demonstrated that greenhouses work by blocking convection of the air, not by absorbing and re-radiating radiant heat. He built greenhouse boxes, one with regular glass, and one with halite (transparent to infrared.)
And Mayhem misspoke about water vapor being called clouds. Clouds are tiny droplets of liquid water, or at higher altitudes, ice crystals.
Correct, Lifels, i have a tendency to over simplify. Excuse me and please consider that i only meant water vapour. I had hoped that the comment would appear as a tacked on throwaway jibe, i missed the mark.