Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[VillagePlank]

 A very strong link link John between colder global temperatures and increased volcanic activity,another example the year without summer 1817 http://search.mywebsearch.com/mywebsearch/redirect.jhtml?searchfor=no+summer+of+1816&cb=Y6&qid=957f1ac754174de2bac45d0366b1e2d0&n=77fcde6f&ptb=undefined&id=Y6xpi000YY&pg=GGmain&action=pick&ptnrS=Y6xpi000YY&pn=1&ss=sub&st=kwd&qs=&pr=GG&tpr=sc&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEhldEaIWePl6Q6qXH8tBsHgX2ukZfGqpBU3oZSdaxWAwPi0WXsBttzlxvySXmZHTvbGdl4p1F5BT7jm%2B24THttALfVvGa7oBHLLHMXHCyMwnr3h7&ord=2&ct=AR&

 

Well, yes, that's the mainstream view: colder global temperatures can be attributed to volcanic eruptions!

[Gray-Wolf]

Beware Comet Ison then!!!

 

I'd love to see some ball park figures for the amount of upper strat dust we are set to encounter over the week of Earths transit through the tail debris? Is it a nothing compared to an 'average' strat punching eruption or will it have the potential to 'tweak' temps ?

Edited July 13, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[keithlucky]

Despite all the recent hype of record temperatures reached in the last few weeks in the USA we have reached the 100yrs anniversary of the hottest temps ever recorded in the USA

In fact the temperatures was 5c to 6c colder than 1913 .

Meeker Oklahoma USHCN TemperaturesMonth    Year   Average Max   Mean   Average MinAugust   1913         106.4   89.5          72.2August   1936         105.8   90.1          73.7July     2011         101.9   89.0          75.6

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-01-0010.pdf

[keithlucky]

IPPC scratching heads to why climate models are failing.why has there not been no global warming for 15yrs  http://t.co/LAdgDJsLC2

 

[Polar Maritime]

IPPC scratching heads to why climate models are failing.why has there not been no global warming for 15yrs  http://t.co/LAdgDJsLC2

 

There has, all 0.06c of it. As has been explained before, as the past tell's us.... warming periods do tend to stagger from time to time.

 

The models have given good guidance, not to be taken as exact.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Polar Maritime

[knocker]

His e-mail address is interesting.

[4wd]

His e-mail address is interesting.

So that invalidates the article and the points made?It's a bit like dismissing everything Greenpeas say or do as somehow suspect or lies, because they are known to campaigh on green issues. 

[Methuselah]

if you want to discuss this in the other thread, by all means, copy the link across...

[UV-RAY]

IPPC scratching heads to why climate models are failing.why has there not been no global warming for 15yrs  http://t.co/LAdgDJsLC2

 

 

IPPC scratching heads to why climate models are failing.why has there not been no global warming for 15yrs  http://t.co/LAdgDJsLC2

They will scratch their heads as their lead authors are undergraduates with  degrees in anything other than sciences. The main reason why climate models are an epic fail is they work on assumptions that rising CO2  will lead to rising temps, if only it  was as simple as that. Sometimes it's best to get out of the lab and into the field and shake off those cobwebs and funding worries and observe what's actually happening.

[Methuselah]

They will scratch their heads as their lead authors are undergraduates with  degrees in anything other than sciences. The main reason why climate models are an epic fail is they work on assumptions that rising CO2  will lead to rising temps, if only it  was as simple as that. Sometimes it's best to get out of the lab and into the field and shake off those cobwebs and funding worries and observe what's actually happening.

And what is your degree in, SI?

[Polar Maritime]

They will scratch their heads as their lead authors are undergraduates with  degrees in anything other than sciences. The main reason why climate models are an epic fail is they work on assumptions that rising CO2  will lead to rising temps, if only it  was as simple as that. Sometimes it's best to get out of the lab and into the field and shake off those cobwebs and funding worries and observe what's actually happening.

 

There are teams of scientist all over the world observing nature to it's minutest detail , Which all seem to come to the same conclusion, that is, the Earth is warming.

[knocker]

They will scratch their heads as their lead authors are undergraduates with  degrees in anything other than sciences. The main reason why climate models are an epic fail is they work on assumptions that rising CO2  will lead to rising temps, if only it  was as simple as that. Sometimes it's best to get out of the lab and into the field and shake off those cobwebs and funding worries and observe what's actually happening.

 

Like Professor Jason Box and the Dark Snow project you mean.

 

http://darksnowproject.org/

[UV-RAY]

And what is your degree in, SI?

 

 

And what is your degree in, SI?

Funny you should ask Pete, I've a degree in Business studies but only an  A level in Physics and Chemistry.  Why does that not qualify me in making observational posts, or do I need to approach the IPCC and ask to become a lead author for the next instalment  of the chronicles of misinformation?

There are teams of scientist all over the world observing nature to it's minutest detail , Which all seem to come to the same conclusion, that is, the Earth is warming.

 

 

There are teams of scientist all over the world observing nature to it's minutest detail , Which all seem to come to the same conclusion, that is, the Earth is warming.

Really? Would they be affiliated to the WWF or Greenpeace by any chance?

[UV-RAY]

Like Professor Jason Box and the Dark Snow project you mean.

 

http://darksnowproject.org/

Lol, your joking right....... And what may these significant changes be then because I see none.

[Methuselah]

Funny you should ask Pete, I've a degree in Business studies but only an  A level in Physics and Chemistry.  Why does that not qualify me in making observational posts, or do I need to approach the IPCC and ask to become a lead author for the next instalment  of the chronicles of misinformation?

 

 

So, whereas I need to learn about business, you need learn about science?  

[UV-RAY]

So, whereas I need to learn about business, you need learn about science?  

So A level Physics and Chemistry disqualifies you from both knowing facts and forming an opinion. That probably explains why climate scientists are in world of their own and dismiss and oppose all those ( even qualified ) who question aspects of their work.

 

 

Also is this thread not for you heathens!!

 

Edited July 14, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Methuselah]

 

So A level Physics and Chemistry disqualifies you from both knowing facts and forming an opinion. That probably explains why climate scientists are in world of their own and dismiss and oppose all those ( even qualified ) who question aspects of their work.

 

 

Also is this thread not for you heathens!!

 

 

I really don't know the answer to that, SI...But, how else do we communicate with  each other?  So long as we are not disrupting threads, it should be okay?

[UV-RAY]

I really don't know the answer to that, SI...But, how else do we communicate with  each other?  So long as we are not disrupting threads, it should be okay?

Agreed, all the replies have been fine Pete and sometimes it's hard to decipher what is meant to be humour from aggression on a thread.

[UV-RAY]

@Pete. In reply to your post in the now locked thread yes I have questioned solar forcing as we seem to only know the tip of the iceberg on it's effects and feedbacks, this is why I don't think it's a one theory fits all scenario. But nearly all proponents of AGW see CO2 as being the main driver of rising temps when  indeed there is little factual evidence  to back up this claim, so I remain sceptical of any one theory being the be all and end all.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Methuselah]

@Pete. In reply to your post in the now locked thread yes I have questioned solar forcing as we seem to only know the tip of the iceberg on it's effects and feedbacks, this is why I don't think it's a one theory fits all scenario. But nearly all proponents of AGW see CO2 as being the main driver of rising temps when  indeed there is little factual evidence  to back up this claim, so I remain sceptical of any one theory being the be all and end all.

I've always seen the CO₂ as something like the straw that broke the camel's back, SI...IMO, so long as we all entertain the idea, that we could (any or all us) turn out to be wrong, we should be okay...

[UV-RAY]

I've always seen the CO₂ as something like the straw that broke the camel's back, SI...IMO, so long as we all entertain the idea, that we could (any or all us) turn out to be wrong, we should be okay...

It certainly can't be discounted Pete but I think that there are so many other variables which could also have as much impact, that any eggs out there shouldn't be put in baskets just yet.

[Methuselah]

It certainly can't be discounted Pete but I think that there are so many other variables which could also have as much impact, that any eggs out there shouldn't be put in baskets just yet.

Indeed...I'd also be interested to know how the ocean currents are still being affected by the peak of Solar radiation that occurred sometime around the late 1950s? That extra heat must be 'in the system' somewhere?

[VillagePlank]

Indeed...I'd also be interested to know how the ocean currents are still being affected by the peak of Solar radiation that occurred sometime around the late 1950s? That extra heat must be 'in the system' somewhere?

 

Hmmm. If only there was an equation; a simple relationship that doesn't suppose instant exchanges but keeps a tiny tiny little bit of energy in the system creating some sort of hysteresis and leaks it back into the system at a rate dependent on the amount of energy in the system .....

Edited July 16, 2013 by Sparkicle

[UV-RAY]

Hmmm. If only there was an equation; a simple relationship that doesn't suppose instant exchanges but keeps a tiny tiny little bit of energy in the system creating some sort of hysteresis and leaks it back into the system at a rate dependent on the amount of energy in the system .....

And what if there was a simple relationship that was fully understood and what if this simple relationship didn't involve complex feedbacks? :-)

[Gray-Wolf]

And what if there was a simple relationship that was fully understood and what if this simple relationship didn't involve complex feedbacks? :-)

 

Then we'd be looking at another planet surely?