On December 14 2011 13:13 XRaDiiX wrote: Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?) The Global Temperature supposedly peaked around 1999-2001 which explains that peak in your chart.
The graph is misleading to say the least since it doesn't include the most recent years as to where the temperature dropped a significant margin.
There is no reason to put much trust in this graph you have displayed (eg : See Climate Gate)
Or you could believe what the MSM thinks climate Gate is a hoax because it hurts their "Agenda"
Are you being willfully misleading?
I am trying to understand the mechanism whereby sun spots have an effect on global temperatures and can be used to explain the warming to date. You linked information showing a correlation between low solar activity and the mini ice age. Then you linked an article stating that we are going into a period of low solar activity. I am fine with both those sources. Neither of them show a link between solar activity and warming or cooling.
The only connection is your correlation for the little ice age. Well, I linked a chart, which has data to back it up, that shows an increasing temperature coinciding with less solar activity. If more solar activity is supposed to be the reason for the warming, why is less activity correlating with increasing temperature. I don't get it.
I mean you say the data I have linked only goes up to 2003 but your correlative data is from wikipedia and from the 1600s? MSM conspiracy crap means nothing to me. If you are going to try and discredit what I have linked based on some conspiracy theory, go ahead. I would still like evidence that your explanation is possible. Please answer the question.
So what you are saying is that there are too many variables work out what is the main cause? If that is the case why raise sun spots in the first place? What are you trying to point out? Either you are saying sun spots have some relevance, or you aren't? Which is it?
Just to put it simple the suns solar activity cannot be compared to the Global Temperature and expected to stay parallel with it.
There are too many other factors/variables involved for the temperature/solar activity comparison to stay the same if we were to expect it to be correlated perfectly or somewhat well.
On December 14 2011 13:13 XRaDiiX wrote: Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?) The Global Temperature supposedly peaked around 1999-2001 which explains that peak in your chart.
The graph is misleading to say the least since it doesn't include the most recent years as to where the temperature dropped a significant margin.
There is no reason to put much trust in this graph you have displayed (eg : See Climate Gate)
Or you could believe what the MSM thinks climate Gate is a hoax because it hurts their "Agenda"
Are you being willfully misleading?
I am trying to understand the mechanism whereby sun spots have an effect on global temperatures and can be used to explain the warming to date. You linked information showing a correlation between low solar activity and the mini ice age. Then you linked an article stating that we are going into a period of low solar activity. I am fine with both those sources. Neither of them show a link between solar activity and warming or cooling.
The only connection is your correlation for the little ice age. Well, I linked a chart, which has data to back it up, that shows an increasing temperature coinciding with less solar activity. If more solar activity is supposed to be the reason for the warming, why is less activity correlating with increasing temperature. I don't get it.
I mean you say the data I have linked only goes up to 2003 but your correlative data is from wikipedia and from the 1600s? MSM conspiracy crap means nothing to me. If you are going to try and discredit what I have linked based on some conspiracy theory, go ahead. I would still like evidence that your explanation is possible. Please answer the question.
So what you are saying is that there are too many variables work out what is the main cause? If that is the case why raise sun spots in the first place? What are you trying to point out? Either you are saying sun spots have some relevance, or you aren't? Which is it?
That's the thing noone knows yet how much relevance they have were going to need 100's -1000's of years of solid data in the future to determine this.
On December 14 2011 13:13 XRaDiiX wrote: Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?) The Global Temperature supposedly peaked around 1999-2001 which explains that peak in your chart.
The graph is misleading to say the least since it doesn't include the most recent years as to where the temperature dropped a significant margin.
There is no reason to put much trust in this graph you have displayed (eg : See Climate Gate)
Or you could believe what the MSM thinks climate Gate is a hoax because it hurts their "Agenda"
Are you being willfully misleading?
I am trying to understand the mechanism whereby sun spots have an effect on global temperatures and can be used to explain the warming to date. You linked information showing a correlation between low solar activity and the mini ice age. Then you linked an article stating that we are going into a period of low solar activity. I am fine with both those sources. Neither of them show a link between solar activity and warming or cooling.
The only connection is your correlation for the little ice age. Well, I linked a chart, which has data to back it up, that shows an increasing temperature coinciding with less solar activity. If more solar activity is supposed to be the reason for the warming, why is less activity correlating with increasing temperature. I don't get it.
I mean you say the data I have linked only goes up to 2003 but your correlative data is from wikipedia and from the 1600s? MSM conspiracy crap means nothing to me. If you are going to try and discredit what I have linked based on some conspiracy theory, go ahead. I would still like evidence that your explanation is possible. Please answer the question.
The Data from the 1600's i believe is also corroborated by Ice Core Data... probably Soil Samples too.. not sure where your getting at? It's not just made up
Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?)
is hypocritical when your data is three lines in wikipedia about temps from the 1600s. What relevance is the end date of the data I linked to the point I was trying to make?
On December 14 2011 13:13 XRaDiiX wrote: Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?) The Global Temperature supposedly peaked around 1999-2001 which explains that peak in your chart.
The graph is misleading to say the least since it doesn't include the most recent years as to where the temperature dropped a significant margin.
There is no reason to put much trust in this graph you have displayed (eg : See Climate Gate)
Or you could believe what the MSM thinks climate Gate is a hoax because it hurts their "Agenda"
Are you being willfully misleading?
I am trying to understand the mechanism whereby sun spots have an effect on global temperatures and can be used to explain the warming to date. You linked information showing a correlation between low solar activity and the mini ice age. Then you linked an article stating that we are going into a period of low solar activity. I am fine with both those sources. Neither of them show a link between solar activity and warming or cooling.
The only connection is your correlation for the little ice age. Well, I linked a chart, which has data to back it up, that shows an increasing temperature coinciding with less solar activity. If more solar activity is supposed to be the reason for the warming, why is less activity correlating with increasing temperature. I don't get it.
I mean you say the data I have linked only goes up to 2003 but your correlative data is from wikipedia and from the 1600s? MSM conspiracy crap means nothing to me. If you are going to try and discredit what I have linked based on some conspiracy theory, go ahead. I would still like evidence that your explanation is possible. Please answer the question.
So what you are saying is that there are too many variables work out what is the main cause? If that is the case why raise sun spots in the first place? What are you trying to point out? Either you are saying sun spots have some relevance, or you aren't? Which is it?
That's the thing noone knows yet how much relevance they have were going to need 100's -1000's of years of solid data in the future to determine this.
The Data from the past may not even suffice.
I'll check back in a 1,000 years how your research is going while China, the U.S., Germany, India and Saudi Arabia all make fundamental shifts towards green technology anyway.
On December 14 2011 13:31 XRaDiiX wrote: Just to put it simple the suns solar activity cannot be compared to the Global Temperature and expected to stay parallel with it.
There are too many other factors/variables involved for the temperature/solar activity comparison to stay the same if we were to expect it to be correlated perfectly or somewhat well.
On December 14 2011 13:13 XRaDiiX wrote: Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?) The Global Temperature supposedly peaked around 1999-2001 which explains that peak in your chart.
The graph is misleading to say the least since it doesn't include the most recent years as to where the temperature dropped a significant margin.
There is no reason to put much trust in this graph you have displayed (eg : See Climate Gate)
Or you could believe what the MSM thinks climate Gate is a hoax because it hurts their "Agenda"
Are you being willfully misleading?
I am trying to understand the mechanism whereby sun spots have an effect on global temperatures and can be used to explain the warming to date. You linked information showing a correlation between low solar activity and the mini ice age. Then you linked an article stating that we are going into a period of low solar activity. I am fine with both those sources. Neither of them show a link between solar activity and warming or cooling.
The only connection is your correlation for the little ice age. Well, I linked a chart, which has data to back it up, that shows an increasing temperature coinciding with less solar activity. If more solar activity is supposed to be the reason for the warming, why is less activity correlating with increasing temperature. I don't get it.
I mean you say the data I have linked only goes up to 2003 but your correlative data is from wikipedia and from the 1600s? MSM conspiracy crap means nothing to me. If you are going to try and discredit what I have linked based on some conspiracy theory, go ahead. I would still like evidence that your explanation is possible. Please answer the question.
So what you are saying is that there are too many variables work out what is the main cause? If that is the case why raise sun spots in the first place? What are you trying to point out? Either you are saying sun spots have some relevance, or you aren't? Which is it?
That's the thing noone knows yet how much relevance they have were going to need 100's -1000's of years of solid data in the future to determine this.
The Data from the past may not even suffice.
Ok, so you are saying that there are too many variables. I get that. I still don't know why you posted this
On December 14 2011 10:18 Joedaddy wrote: I've always heard that there is as much scientific evidence disproving man-made global warming/climate change/whatever they are calling it today as there is supporting it.
I stopped believing when advocates changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change.
Ok, yet another repeated argument
Argument from the sceptics
There is no consensus The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (Petition Project)
Response
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).
Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
Directly from the links I posted earlier. Come on people, please try and move this forward. Going over the same ground does nothing.
Ok but... there are still a huge number of scientists who say there is no evidence supporting man made global warming/climate change.
Your 1 article does not open and close the book on 31,000+ scientists who disagree. Its a nice argument for consensus but it does nothing to address the evidence against man made global warming. The article is extremely bias in saying that "those who understand the nuances and scientific basis."
That's just a nice way of saying if you disagree then you don't know what you're talking about. Again, its not addressing any of the evidence against man made global warming.
Fair enough. Link the data. And not a youtube clip please, actual data sets proving your point. Articles that are peer reviewed or at least in respectable publications. In particular, those that show that the globe is not warming over the long term, or ones that show if its warming the source is something natural. (Sun cycles have been dealt with earlier in this thread)
Oh here's a little piece for you on Sun Cycles. 3 Different Major NASA studies came to the same conclusion.
On December 14 2011 13:13 XRaDiiX wrote: Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?) The Global Temperature supposedly peaked around 1999-2001 which explains that peak in your chart.
The graph is misleading to say the least since it doesn't include the most recent years as to where the temperature dropped a significant margin.
There is no reason to put much trust in this graph you have displayed (eg : See Climate Gate)
Or you could believe what the MSM thinks climate Gate is a hoax because it hurts their "Agenda"
Are you being willfully misleading?
I am trying to understand the mechanism whereby sun spots have an effect on global temperatures and can be used to explain the warming to date. You linked information showing a correlation between low solar activity and the mini ice age. Then you linked an article stating that we are going into a period of low solar activity. I am fine with both those sources. Neither of them show a link between solar activity and warming or cooling.
The only connection is your correlation for the little ice age. Well, I linked a chart, which has data to back it up, that shows an increasing temperature coinciding with less solar activity. If more solar activity is supposed to be the reason for the warming, why is less activity correlating with increasing temperature. I don't get it.
I mean you say the data I have linked only goes up to 2003 but your correlative data is from wikipedia and from the 1600s? MSM conspiracy crap means nothing to me. If you are going to try and discredit what I have linked based on some conspiracy theory, go ahead. I would still like evidence that your explanation is possible. Please answer the question.
So what you are saying is that there are too many variables work out what is the main cause? If that is the case why raise sun spots in the first place? What are you trying to point out? Either you are saying sun spots have some relevance, or you aren't? Which is it?
That's the thing noone knows yet how much relevance they have were going to need 100's -1000's of years of solid data in the future to determine this.
The Data from the past may not even suffice.
I'll check back in a 1,000 years how your research is going while China, the U.S., Germany, India and Saudi Arabia all make fundamental shifts towards green technology anyway.
On December 14 2011 13:13 XRaDiiX wrote: Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?) The Global Temperature supposedly peaked around 1999-2001 which explains that peak in your chart.
The graph is misleading to say the least since it doesn't include the most recent years as to where the temperature dropped a significant margin.
There is no reason to put much trust in this graph you have displayed (eg : See Climate Gate)
Or you could believe what the MSM thinks climate Gate is a hoax because it hurts their "Agenda"
Are you being willfully misleading?
I am trying to understand the mechanism whereby sun spots have an effect on global temperatures and can be used to explain the warming to date. You linked information showing a correlation between low solar activity and the mini ice age. Then you linked an article stating that we are going into a period of low solar activity. I am fine with both those sources. Neither of them show a link between solar activity and warming or cooling.
The only connection is your correlation for the little ice age. Well, I linked a chart, which has data to back it up, that shows an increasing temperature coinciding with less solar activity. If more solar activity is supposed to be the reason for the warming, why is less activity correlating with increasing temperature. I don't get it.
I mean you say the data I have linked only goes up to 2003 but your correlative data is from wikipedia and from the 1600s? MSM conspiracy crap means nothing to me. If you are going to try and discredit what I have linked based on some conspiracy theory, go ahead. I would still like evidence that your explanation is possible. Please answer the question.
The Data from the 1600's i believe is also corroborated by Ice Core Data... probably Soil Samples too.. not sure where your getting at? It's not just made up
Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?)
is hypocritical when your data is three lines in wikipedia about temps from the 1600s. What relevance is the end date of the data I linked to the point I was trying to make?
The Wikipedia is related to the story i linked in Space.com about possible going into another mini-ice age it's not like i was trying to compare that to the current solar data.
There's not really anything else i can say about it but my statement here
But the temperature fluctuations of the Earth do not solely rely on the sun. So i don't understand where your getting at. Even if Climate gate was wrong.
The Temperature fluctuations could have came from other factors/variables involved in determining the temperature. Which makes the Graph completely irrelevant.
(eg: Other Factors determining Earths Global Temperatures CME's , Gamma Ray Burts, Inter-stellar Particles, Ocean Temperatures, Ocean Currents, Percentage of Ice Melted, Winds, Biosphere Regeneration Destruction, Atmospheric Properties, Amount of Volcanic Activity, ETC. the list goes on Forever.)
The Data from Space.com shows that the Sun plays a part in Climate/Global Temperature Change. It is not the Sole Factor.
On December 14 2011 10:18 Joedaddy wrote: I've always heard that there is as much scientific evidence disproving man-made global warming/climate change/whatever they are calling it today as there is supporting it.
I stopped believing when advocates changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change.
Ok, yet another repeated argument
Argument from the sceptics
There is no consensus The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (Petition Project)
Response
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).
Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
Directly from the links I posted earlier. Come on people, please try and move this forward. Going over the same ground does nothing.
Ok but... there are still a huge number of scientists who say there is no evidence supporting man made global warming/climate change.
Your 1 article does not open and close the book on 31,000+ scientists who disagree. Its a nice argument for consensus but it does nothing to address the evidence against man made global warming. The article is extremely bias in saying that "those who understand the nuances and scientific basis."
That's just a nice way of saying if you disagree then you don't know what you're talking about. Again, its not addressing any of the evidence against man made global warming.
Fair enough. Link the data. And not a youtube clip please, actual data sets proving your point. Articles that are peer reviewed or at least in respectable publications. In particular, those that show that the globe is not warming over the long term, or ones that show if its warming the source is something natural. (Sun cycles have been dealt with earlier in this thread)
Oh here's a little piece for you on Sun Cycles. 3 Different Major NASA studies came to the same conclusion.
Thanks for the links. My understanding is as follows
The sun is heading into a likely low period of solar activity. The number of sunspots are expected to be very low for an extended period of time.
The little iceage coincided with a similar effect. According to your link this is one possible explanation for the "little iceage". The others being increased volcanic activity and orbital variations.
Is that correct because I fail to see how that explains this
If I understand your point, you are saying that the warming is due to an increased solar activity that is currently winding down. If that is the case you would expect that the chart would show some connection between solar activity and global temperatures. Am I missing something?
Because it isn't supposed to start until the end of this or the next Solar Cycle.
Which is in 2015 or 2021 .....
Edit: Face palm to your next post. Seriously the graph shows that solar activity is already slowing but that is has no effect on temperature. Sure the next period is going to have less, bt why will that affect temperature. It hasn't so far.
Seriously the graph shows that solar activity is already slowing but that is has no effect on temperature.
No. You're forgetting other Factors/Variables could make it look like the Solar activity isn't affecting the temperature when clearly it is.
There are other Factors/Variables involved in determining Global Temperature that of which were posted in one of my previos posts on this page. 2 posts before this one.
Exactly. There are a bunch of factors, not just the one. Though solar activity does make up one of the primary ones. The point is that all of the natural variables they've tried currently do not explain the increasing temperature. When adjusted with the other factors, solar activity does not account for the increase in recent times (e,g, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full ). Now what about the little Ice Age?
On December 14 2011 13:13 XRaDiiX wrote: Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?) The Global Temperature supposedly peaked around 1999-2001 which explains that peak in your chart.
The graph is misleading to say the least since it doesn't include the most recent years as to where the temperature dropped a significant margin.
There is no reason to put much trust in this graph you have displayed (eg : See Climate Gate)
Or you could believe what the MSM thinks climate Gate is a hoax because it hurts their "Agenda"
Are you being willfully misleading?
I am trying to understand the mechanism whereby sun spots have an effect on global temperatures and can be used to explain the warming to date. You linked information showing a correlation between low solar activity and the mini ice age. Then you linked an article stating that we are going into a period of low solar activity. I am fine with both those sources. Neither of them show a link between solar activity and warming or cooling.
The only connection is your correlation for the little ice age. Well, I linked a chart, which has data to back it up, that shows an increasing temperature coinciding with less solar activity. If more solar activity is supposed to be the reason for the warming, why is less activity correlating with increasing temperature. I don't get it.
I mean you say the data I have linked only goes up to 2003 but your correlative data is from wikipedia and from the 1600s? MSM conspiracy crap means nothing to me. If you are going to try and discredit what I have linked based on some conspiracy theory, go ahead. I would still like evidence that your explanation is possible. Please answer the question.
The Data from the 1600's i believe is also corroborated by Ice Core Data... probably Soil Samples too.. not sure where your getting at? It's not just made up
Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?)
is hypocritical when your data is three lines in wikipedia about temps from the 1600s. What relevance is the end date of the data I linked to the point I was trying to make?
The Wikipedia is related to the story i linked in Space.com about possible going into another mini-ice age it's not like i was trying to compare that to the current solar data.
There's not really anything else i can say about it but my statement here
But the temperature fluctuations of the Earth do not solely rely on the sun. So i don't understand where your getting at. Even if Climate gate was wrong.
The Temperature fluctuations could have came from other factors/variables involved in determining the temperature. Which makes the Graph completely irrelevant.
(eg: Other Factors determining Earths Global Temperatures CME's , Gamma Ray Burts, Inter-stellar Particles, Ocean Temperatures, Ocean Currents, Percentage of Ice Melted, Winds, Biosphere Regeneration Destruction, Atmospheric Properties, Amount of Volcanic Activity, ETC. the list goes on Forever.)
The Data from Space.com shows that the Sun plays a part in Climate/Global Temperature Change. It is not the Sole Factor.
Where does it say that? The only thing I read is that there is changes in the sun spot activity with much less expected in the near future. Nothing about global temperature.
On December 14 2011 10:18 Joedaddy wrote: I've always heard that there is as much scientific evidence disproving man-made global warming/climate change/whatever they are calling it today as there is supporting it.
I stopped believing when advocates changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change.
Ok, yet another repeated argument
Argument from the sceptics
There is no consensus The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (Petition Project)
Response
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).
Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
Directly from the links I posted earlier. Come on people, please try and move this forward. Going over the same ground does nothing.
Ok but... there are still a huge number of scientists who say there is no evidence supporting man made global warming/climate change.
Your 1 article does not open and close the book on 31,000+ scientists who disagree. Its a nice argument for consensus but it does nothing to address the evidence against man made global warming. The article is extremely bias in saying that "those who understand the nuances and scientific basis."
That's just a nice way of saying if you disagree then you don't know what you're talking about. Again, its not addressing any of the evidence against man made global warming.
Fair enough. Link the data. And not a youtube clip please, actual data sets proving your point. Articles that are peer reviewed or at least in respectable publications. In particular, those that show that the globe is not warming over the long term, or ones that show if its warming the source is something natural. (Sun cycles have been dealt with earlier in this thread)
Oh here's a little piece for you on Sun Cycles. 3 Different Major NASA studies came to the same conclusion.
Thanks for the links. My understanding is as follows
The sun is heading into a likely low period of solar activity. The number of sunspots are expected to be very low for an extended period of time.
The little iceage coincided with a similar effect. According to your link this is one possible explanation for the "little iceage". The others being increased volcanic activity and orbital variations.
Is that correct because I fail to see how that explains this
If I understand your point, you are saying that the warming is due to an increased solar activity that is currently winding down. If that is the case you would expect that the chart would show some connection between solar activity and global temperatures. Am I missing something?
Because it isn't supposed to start until the end of this or the next Solar Cycle.
Which is in 2015 or 2021 .....
Edit: Face palm to your next post. Seriously the graph shows that solar activity is already slowing but that is has no effect on temperature. Sure the next period is going to have less, bt why will that affect temperature. It hasn't so far.
No.
Seriously the graph shows that solar activity is already slowing but that is has no effect on temperature.
No. You're forgetting other Factors/Variables could make it look like the Solar activity isn't affecting the temperature when clearly it is.
There are other Factors/Variables involved in determining Global Temperature that of which were posted in one of my previos posts on this page. 2 posts before this one.
Exactly. There are a bunch of factors, not just the one. Though solar activity does make up one of the primary ones. The point is that all of the natural variables they've tried currently do not explain the increasing temperature. When adjusted with the other factors, solar activity does not account for the increase in recent times (e,g, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full ).
Climate Gate the data cannot exactly be trusted if it was tampered with.
On December 14 2011 13:13 XRaDiiX wrote: Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?) The Global Temperature supposedly peaked around 1999-2001 which explains that peak in your chart.
The graph is misleading to say the least since it doesn't include the most recent years as to where the temperature dropped a significant margin.
There is no reason to put much trust in this graph you have displayed (eg : See Climate Gate)
Or you could believe what the MSM thinks climate Gate is a hoax because it hurts their "Agenda"
Are you being willfully misleading?
I am trying to understand the mechanism whereby sun spots have an effect on global temperatures and can be used to explain the warming to date. You linked information showing a correlation between low solar activity and the mini ice age. Then you linked an article stating that we are going into a period of low solar activity. I am fine with both those sources. Neither of them show a link between solar activity and warming or cooling.
The only connection is your correlation for the little ice age. Well, I linked a chart, which has data to back it up, that shows an increasing temperature coinciding with less solar activity. If more solar activity is supposed to be the reason for the warming, why is less activity correlating with increasing temperature. I don't get it.
I mean you say the data I have linked only goes up to 2003 but your correlative data is from wikipedia and from the 1600s? MSM conspiracy crap means nothing to me. If you are going to try and discredit what I have linked based on some conspiracy theory, go ahead. I would still like evidence that your explanation is possible. Please answer the question.
The Data from the 1600's i believe is also corroborated by Ice Core Data... probably Soil Samples too.. not sure where your getting at? It's not just made up
Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?)
is hypocritical when your data is three lines in wikipedia about temps from the 1600s. What relevance is the end date of the data I linked to the point I was trying to make?
The Wikipedia is related to the story i linked in Space.com about possible going into another mini-ice age it's not like i was trying to compare that to the current solar data.
There's not really anything else i can say about it but my statement here
But the temperature fluctuations of the Earth do not solely rely on the sun. So i don't understand where your getting at. Even if Climate gate was wrong.
The Temperature fluctuations could have came from other factors/variables involved in determining the temperature. Which makes the Graph completely irrelevant.
(eg: Other Factors determining Earths Global Temperatures CME's , Gamma Ray Burts, Inter-stellar Particles, Ocean Temperatures, Ocean Currents, Percentage of Ice Melted, Winds, Biosphere Regeneration Destruction, Atmospheric Properties, Amount of Volcanic Activity, ETC. the list goes on Forever.)
The Data from Space.com shows that the Sun plays a part in Climate/Global Temperature Change. It is not the Sole Factor.
Where does it say that? The only thing I read is that there is changes in the sun spot activity with much less expected in the near future. Nothing about global temperature.
Because Space.Com is a Pro-Global Warming Site owned By CNN/TimeWarner Etc. They leave that little part out and don't imply a drop in temperature with decreased solar activity per se Little Ice Age.
At the end of the Article they don't really specify because of their Pro-Global Warming Climate Change Stance.
If the models prove accurate and the trends continue, the implications could be far-reaching.
"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades," Hill said. "That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."
"That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."= Change in Temperature Less Solar Activity = Drop in Temperature
Global climate has way too many variables to fully understand. That's my only take. I'm not saying CO2 doesn't influence global temperature, but to be absolutely 100% convinced the oceans will rise and we'll all die if we don't stop burning coal seems wrong.
On December 14 2011 13:13 XRaDiiX wrote: Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?) The Global Temperature supposedly peaked around 1999-2001 which explains that peak in your chart.
The graph is misleading to say the least since it doesn't include the most recent years as to where the temperature dropped a significant margin.
There is no reason to put much trust in this graph you have displayed (eg : See Climate Gate)
Or you could believe what the MSM thinks climate Gate is a hoax because it hurts their "Agenda"
Are you being willfully misleading?
I am trying to understand the mechanism whereby sun spots have an effect on global temperatures and can be used to explain the warming to date. You linked information showing a correlation between low solar activity and the mini ice age. Then you linked an article stating that we are going into a period of low solar activity. I am fine with both those sources. Neither of them show a link between solar activity and warming or cooling.
The only connection is your correlation for the little ice age. Well, I linked a chart, which has data to back it up, that shows an increasing temperature coinciding with less solar activity. If more solar activity is supposed to be the reason for the warming, why is less activity correlating with increasing temperature. I don't get it.
I mean you say the data I have linked only goes up to 2003 but your correlative data is from wikipedia and from the 1600s? MSM conspiracy crap means nothing to me. If you are going to try and discredit what I have linked based on some conspiracy theory, go ahead. I would still like evidence that your explanation is possible. Please answer the question.
The Data from the 1600's i believe is also corroborated by Ice Core Data... probably Soil Samples too.. not sure where your getting at? It's not just made up
Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?)
is hypocritical when your data is three lines in wikipedia about temps from the 1600s. What relevance is the end date of the data I linked to the point I was trying to make?
The Wikipedia is related to the story i linked in Space.com about possible going into another mini-ice age it's not like i was trying to compare that to the current solar data.
There's not really anything else i can say about it but my statement here
But the temperature fluctuations of the Earth do not solely rely on the sun. So i don't understand where your getting at. Even if Climate gate was wrong.
The Temperature fluctuations could have came from other factors/variables involved in determining the temperature. Which makes the Graph completely irrelevant.
(eg: Other Factors determining Earths Global Temperatures CME's , Gamma Ray Burts, Inter-stellar Particles, Ocean Temperatures, Ocean Currents, Percentage of Ice Melted, Winds, Biosphere Regeneration Destruction, Atmospheric Properties, Amount of Volcanic Activity, ETC. the list goes on Forever.)
The Data from Space.com shows that the Sun plays a part in Climate/Global Temperature Change. It is not the Sole Factor.
Where does it say that? The only thing I read is that there is changes in the sun spot activity with much less expected in the near future. Nothing about global temperature.
Because Space.Com is a Pro-Global Warming Site owned By CNN/TimeWarner Etc. They leave that little part out and don't imply a drop in temperature with decreased solar activity per se Little Ice Age.
At the end of the Article they don't really specify because of their Pro-Global Warming Climate Change Stance.
If the models prove accurate and the trends continue, the implications could be far-reaching.
"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades," Hill said. "That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."
They leave us hanging.
But that whole thing is predicated on a link between sun spot activity and warming? The article does not add any information towards crediting or refuting that hypothesis, yet you state "The Data from Space.com shows that the Sun plays a part in Climate/Global Temperature Change". All it says is that this would effect earth's climate, not how. Please try and be clear. Are you positing that there is a link between sun spot activity and warming/cooling?
Edit:
"That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."= Change in Temperature Less Solar Activity = Drop in Temperature
Please explain where you get that from? How is effect climate = change in temperature less solar activity? I see no data to suggest that link other than a correlation of low solar activity with the little ice age.
On December 14 2011 13:13 XRaDiiX wrote: Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?) The Global Temperature supposedly peaked around 1999-2001 which explains that peak in your chart.
The graph is misleading to say the least since it doesn't include the most recent years as to where the temperature dropped a significant margin.
There is no reason to put much trust in this graph you have displayed (eg : See Climate Gate)
Or you could believe what the MSM thinks climate Gate is a hoax because it hurts their "Agenda"
Are you being willfully misleading?
I am trying to understand the mechanism whereby sun spots have an effect on global temperatures and can be used to explain the warming to date. You linked information showing a correlation between low solar activity and the mini ice age. Then you linked an article stating that we are going into a period of low solar activity. I am fine with both those sources. Neither of them show a link between solar activity and warming or cooling.
The only connection is your correlation for the little ice age. Well, I linked a chart, which has data to back it up, that shows an increasing temperature coinciding with less solar activity. If more solar activity is supposed to be the reason for the warming, why is less activity correlating with increasing temperature. I don't get it.
I mean you say the data I have linked only goes up to 2003 but your correlative data is from wikipedia and from the 1600s? MSM conspiracy crap means nothing to me. If you are going to try and discredit what I have linked based on some conspiracy theory, go ahead. I would still like evidence that your explanation is possible. Please answer the question.
The Data from the 1600's i believe is also corroborated by Ice Core Data... probably Soil Samples too.. not sure where your getting at? It's not just made up
Not only is that chart you linked irrelevant but it only shows (it looks like up until 2002-2003?)
is hypocritical when your data is three lines in wikipedia about temps from the 1600s. What relevance is the end date of the data I linked to the point I was trying to make?
The Wikipedia is related to the story i linked in Space.com about possible going into another mini-ice age it's not like i was trying to compare that to the current solar data.
There's not really anything else i can say about it but my statement here
But the temperature fluctuations of the Earth do not solely rely on the sun. So i don't understand where your getting at. Even if Climate gate was wrong.
The Temperature fluctuations could have came from other factors/variables involved in determining the temperature. Which makes the Graph completely irrelevant.
(eg: Other Factors determining Earths Global Temperatures CME's , Gamma Ray Burts, Inter-stellar Particles, Ocean Temperatures, Ocean Currents, Percentage of Ice Melted, Winds, Biosphere Regeneration Destruction, Atmospheric Properties, Amount of Volcanic Activity, ETC. the list goes on Forever.)
The Data from Space.com shows that the Sun plays a part in Climate/Global Temperature Change. It is not the Sole Factor.
Where does it say that? The only thing I read is that there is changes in the sun spot activity with much less expected in the near future. Nothing about global temperature.
Because Space.Com is a Pro-Global Warming Site owned By CNN/TimeWarner Etc. They leave that little part out and don't imply a drop in temperature with decreased solar activity per se Little Ice Age.
At the end of the Article they don't really specify because of their Pro-Global Warming Climate Change Stance.
If the models prove accurate and the trends continue, the implications could be far-reaching.
"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades," Hill said. "That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."
They leave us hanging.
But that whole thing is predicated on a link between sun spot activity and warming? The article does not add any information towards crediting or refuting that hypothesis, yet you state "The Data from Space.com shows that the Sun plays a part in Climate/Global Temperature Change". All it says is that this would effect earth's climate, not how. Please try and be clear. Are you positing that there is a link between sun spot activity and warming/cooling?
It would be a cooling trend Will find relevant information soon
On December 14 2011 13:46 Falcon-sw wrote: Global climate has way too many variables to fully understand. That's my only take. I'm not saying CO2 doesn't influence global temperature, but to be absolutely 100% convinced the oceans will rise and we'll all die if we don't stop burning coal seems wrong.
Granted it was volcanism that erupted under massive coal beds that is speculated to have done it, as opposed to our much slower method of human extraction and combustion of coal and oil that would take alot longer to achieve such levels of anoxia. Still just throwing it out there on an extreme level it is more then possible.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3RstH.gif)
