|
On December 14 2011 12:03 sluggaslamoo wrote:
I see nothing positive about the changes in climate, there's some real examples of the percieved "better" changes, but in reality it just doesn't work that way, we need the world to be as it was before we started polluting like mad.
Just to jump in on this statement - I agree with your statement. The idea that heavier rainfall and increased CO2 will increase crop production does not apply equally to all crops, and does not exclude the growth of fungus and other anti-crop organisms.
|
On December 13 2011 07:12 Traeon wrote:
Man-made climate change is only controversial in the US, everywhere else it is accepted as reality.
Still, it would be interesting to see an actual discussion taking place.
This is true. Al Gore called it "The Assault on Reason."
I saw a poll the a few months ago that most Americans believe Obama has raised everybody's taxes, yet just the opposite is true. The vast majority of people's taxes have gone down. I'm not saying Obama is good, or Obama is bad, but people have no clue about facts. The level of misinformation, distortion, and outright ignorance is amazing.
Up here in Canada politics is pretty boring, but when I see whats happening in the US, I'm glad it's boring.
|
On December 14 2011 10:29 Mip wrote:
I'm a statistician and from what I've seen of climate models that address the relevant statistical uncertainty associated with the major climate models is that they show an upward trend in predictions, but the confidence bands on the predictions diverge so quickly as to make the thought that we can predict where this whole "global warming" scare is going to actually end up going absolutely moot.
There is also no way to prove causality with anthropogenic sources. The temperature of the earth has swung so wildly in the past that the relatively tiny rises in temperature that climate scientists are claim as "anthropogenic warming" could just as easily be explained as noise in the grand scheme of climate evolution. This is true unless you are willing to make the claim that you understand all that contributes to the climate and how everything interacts, which from experts I've talked to in the field, that is not the case. There are always new covariates that are being discovered that change everything.
It's easy to prove that for a closed system the addition of more C02 adds a warming effect, but when you add to that all the complex interactions of the environment with the C02 levels, then you complicate the problem to the point that the mere assertion that an increasing C02 concentration in the atmosphere has an increasing effect on global temperature is also moot.
Use of the word "denialist" is also wholly irresponsible in terms of trying to have an unbiased fact-based debate. That term carries the same connotation as a holocaust denier and this isn't a history debate, it's a science debate. Climate science is not "settled" and to try and take a position that some of these points are beyond the point of being argued about at this point is destructive to the scientific inquiry on the matter.
There is also a large stratification of people who don't buy into the "people are destroying the world" side of the climate debate. There are people who deny global warming on the grounds that global temperature has fallen in the last 10 years. There are people who accept that the past century has been one of warming, but are skeptical about the source of the warming. There are people who take everything they hear from the news and from Al Gore, and just buy into the whole theory with no question. But if you're going to have a serious debate, you have to acknowledge that there are many many groups of people that are on different sides of a lot of sub-issues.
This is the reason there will never be a conclusion or winner in this thread there is no way to determine with all the variables our effect yet on the climate we are going to need 100's of years or 1000's of years of weather data.
Give this man a medal.
|
On December 14 2011 11:25 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 10:56 Probulous wrote:On December 14 2011 10:39 Joedaddy wrote:On December 14 2011 10:25 Probulous wrote: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. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htmDirectly 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) I'm not the one pretending to be a scientist. I most likely wouldn't know a data set disproving man made global warming if it sat on my lap and told me what it wanted for Christmas. The OP asked for skeptics' arguments for not believing man made global warming and I gave mine. In return, you gave me a completely biased article that didn't really say anything. What Mip said makes more sense than anything else I've seen so far though.
You are right what Mip says is 100% truth there is no conclusion to anything yet we cannot for 100% determine the truth yet. But the Anthropogenic Global Warming/ Climate Change believers will continue to call us Denialist, etc when really we are the ones keeping an open-mind to the subject that has no conclusive evidence
|
On December 14 2011 10:56 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 10:39 Joedaddy wrote:On December 14 2011 10:25 Probulous wrote: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. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htmDirectly 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.
http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html
I've been researching GlobalWarming/Climate Change on the Internet for a few years now; but please read the article.
After the next solar maximum ends there is a very good chance that we could enter another maunder minimum(Mini- Ice Age) Relevant Information Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
|
Super helpful thread, thankyou so much!
(coming from a former skeptic)
|
On December 14 2011 12:28 XRaDiiX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 10:56 Probulous wrote:On December 14 2011 10:39 Joedaddy wrote:On December 14 2011 10:25 Probulous wrote: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. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htmDirectly 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. http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.htmlI've been researching GlobalWarming/Climate Change on the Internet for a few years now; but please read the article. After the next solar maximum ends there is a very good chance that we could enter another maunder minimum(Mini- Ice Age) Relevant Information Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
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
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3RstH.gif)
from http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
The actual data records for the chart are linked as well.
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?
|
On December 14 2011 13:02 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 12:28 XRaDiiX wrote:On December 14 2011 10:56 Probulous wrote:On December 14 2011 10:39 Joedaddy wrote:On December 14 2011 10:25 Probulous wrote: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. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htmDirectly 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. http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.htmlI've been researching GlobalWarming/Climate Change on the Internet for a few years now; but please read the article. After the next solar maximum ends there is a very good chance that we could enter another maunder minimum(Mini- Ice Age) Relevant Information Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age 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 from http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmThe actual data records for the chart are linked as well. 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 .....
|
I just have several simple points
1. We can all agree that reducing polution is a good thing and we should seek to keep our planet as green as possible but there is a very real cost to strict carbon regulations
2. regulating carbon production is not the answer and cannot work without accepting that it must include the killing of millions of people through forced population control/starvation - I simply won't accept this as an option
3. Strict carbon regulations hurt the poor more than the wealthy
4. Carbon credits are a scam that don't actually reduce carbon emmissions but simply make democrat owned green companys money at the expense of our economy (I am an independent and think republican politicians are morons too)
5. The belief that we scientifically understand our Macro climate system well enough that we can affect global change is moronic and is just as much a religion as Christianity.
6. Corporate greed exists on both sides of the issue, and entire industry has been created as a result of the idea of man made global warming. Scientists lose their funding, corporations go out of business if the scientific facts don't support the global warming story...so conveniently the data was changed in many cases
|
The results of three separate studies seem to show that even as the current sunspot cycle swells toward the solar maximum, the sun could be heading into a more-dormant period, with activity during the next 11-year sunspot cycle greatly reduced or even eliminated.
Spots on the sun
Sunspots are temporary patches on the surface of the sun that are caused by intense magnetic activity. These structures sometimes erupt into energetic solar storms that send streams of charged particles into space.
Since powerful charged particles from solar storms can occasionally wreak havoc on Earth's magnetic field by knocking out power grids or disrupting satellites in orbit, a calmer solar cycle could have its advantages.
Astronomers study mysterious sunspots because their number and frequency act as indicators of the sun's activity, which ebbs and flows in an 11-year cycle. Typically, a cycle takes roughly 5.5 years to move from a solar minimum, when there are few sunspots, to the solar maximum, during which sunspot activity is amplified.
Currently, the sun is in the midst of the period designated as Cycle 24 and is ramping up toward the cycle's period of maximum activity. However, the recent findings indicate that the activity in the next 11-year solar cycle, Cycle 25, could be greatly reduced. In fact, some scientists are questioning whether this drop in activity could lead to a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period from 1645 to 1715 when the sun showed virtually no sunspots. [Video: Rivers of Fire Inflame Sunspots]
Hill is the lead author of one of the studies that used data from the Global Oscillation Network Group to look at characteristics of the solar interior. (The group includes six observing stations around the world.) The astronomers examined an east-west zonal wind flow inside the sun, called torsional oscillation. The latitude of this jet stream matches the new sunspot formation in each cycle, and models successfully predicted the late onset of the current Cycle 24.
"We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now, but we see no sign of it," Hill said. "The flow for Cycle 25 should have appeared in 2008 or 2009. This leads us to believe that the next cycle will be very much delayed, with a minimum longer than the one we just went through."
Hill estimated that the start of Cycle 25 could be delayed to 2021 or 2022 and will be very weak, if it even happens at all.
Helps to read the Article ... Sorry just not sure if you saw that part.
|
On December 14 2011 13:06 XRaDiiX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 13:02 Probulous wrote:On December 14 2011 12:28 XRaDiiX wrote:On December 14 2011 10:56 Probulous wrote:On December 14 2011 10:39 Joedaddy wrote:On December 14 2011 10:25 Probulous wrote: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. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htmDirectly 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. http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.htmlI've been researching GlobalWarming/Climate Change on the Internet for a few years now; but please read the article. After the next solar maximum ends there is a very good chance that we could enter another maunder minimum(Mini- Ice Age) Relevant Information Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age 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 from http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmThe actual data records for the chart are linked as well. 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 .....
But the two curves are clearly diverging 
The solar activity is already slowing down. If this is supposed to be linked to a cooling then surely you would expect the warming to stop? Why are the curves separating and not coming closer together? I must be missing something because in my understanding, if solar activity is used to explain the warming over the last 100 plus years then surely a slow down in solar activity would not be associated with increasing temperature?
I can understand if there was supposed to be a lag between solar acitivty and its effect on warming but nothing posted says that is the case. Can you explain it in a little more than two lines?
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.
|
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"
|
On December 14 2011 13:11 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 13:06 XRaDiiX wrote:On December 14 2011 13:02 Probulous wrote:On December 14 2011 12:28 XRaDiiX wrote:On December 14 2011 10:56 Probulous wrote:On December 14 2011 10:39 Joedaddy wrote:On December 14 2011 10:25 Probulous wrote: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. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htmDirectly 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. http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.htmlI've been researching GlobalWarming/Climate Change on the Internet for a few years now; but please read the article. After the next solar maximum ends there is a very good chance that we could enter another maunder minimum(Mini- Ice Age) Relevant Information Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age 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 from http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmThe actual data records for the chart are linked as well. 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 ..... But the two curves are clearly diverging The solar activity is already slowing down. If this is supposed to be linked to a cooling then surely you would expect the warming to stop? Why are the curves separating and not coming closer together? I must be missing something because in my understanding, if solar activity is used to explain the warming over the last 100 plus years then surely a slow down in solar activity would not be associated with increasing temperature? I can understand if there was supposed to be a lag between solar acitivty and its effect on warming but nothing posted says that is the case. Can you explain it in a little more than two lines? 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.
Solar activity is not the only major factor in Global Temperature your mixing things up its only one of the varaibles a significant one at that.
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 solar activity is already slowing down. If this is supposed to be linked to a cooling then surely you would expect the warming to stop? Why are the curves separating and not coming closer together? I must be missing something because in my understanding, if solar activity is used to explain the warming over the last 100 plus years then surely a slow down in solar activity would not be associated with increasing temperature?
I can understand if there was supposed to be a lag between solar acitivty and its effect on warming but nothing posted says that is the case. Can you explain it in a little more than two lines?
Can we be sure that the temperture readings from the last 20 years are even accurate when it was revealed that many of the primary temperature readings used to evaluate this were simply changed because they were in fact not reading an increase in temperature and didn't fit their "understand" of global warming?
There have been too many instances of manipulation of data within the climate science community that I am very skeptical. When science stops following the basic rules of the scientific method in order to support a theory because the evidence doesn't support that theory then it loses all credibility in my eyes
Edited to remove extra accidental word
|
On December 14 2011 13:19 Innovation wrote:Show nested quote +The solar activity is already slowing down. If this is supposed to be linked to a cooling then surely you would expect the warming to stop? Why are the curves separating and not coming closer together? I must be missing something because in my understanding, if solar activity is used to explain the warming over the last 100 plus years then surely a slow down in solar activity would not be associated with increasing temperature?
I can understand if there was supposed to be a lag between solar acitivty and its effect on warming but nothing posted says that is the case. Can you explain it in a little more than two lines? Can we be sure that the temperture readings from the last 20 years are even accurate when it was revealed that many of the primary temperature readings used to evaluate this were simply changed because they were in fact not reading an increase in temperature and didn't fit their "understand" of global warming? There have been too many instances of manipulation of data within the climate science community that I am very skeptical. When science stops following the basic rules of the scientific method in order to support a theory because the evidence doesn't support that theory then called it loses all credibility in my eyes
Exactly where Climate Gate is factored in they were caught manipulating the Data to show a warming trend.
Well said. It's hard to trust the data now-adays...
|
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.
|
On December 14 2011 13:11 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 13:06 XRaDiiX wrote:On December 14 2011 13:02 Probulous wrote:On December 14 2011 12:28 XRaDiiX wrote:On December 14 2011 10:56 Probulous wrote:On December 14 2011 10:39 Joedaddy wrote:On December 14 2011 10:25 Probulous wrote: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. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htmDirectly 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. http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.htmlI've been researching GlobalWarming/Climate Change on the Internet for a few years now; but please read the article. After the next solar maximum ends there is a very good chance that we could enter another maunder minimum(Mini- Ice Age) Relevant Information Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age 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 from http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmThe actual data records for the chart are linked as well. 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.
|
On December 14 2011 13:23 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Are you being willfully misleading?
No
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=294083¤tpage=17#333
|
On December 14 2011 13:23 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
|
Okay fine you edited your post lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
