Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change


Paul

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Ribble Valley
  • Location: Ribble Valley

Then we'd be looking at another planet surely?

Lol, I thought you came from one. On a serious note not at all GW as we still don't fully understand how all our complex feedbacks work, if we did then we wouldn't have the MetO stating how our climate is more complicated than previously thought. We've still a lot to learn GW! Edited by Sceptical Inquirer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

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

The only way I can ever see that happening, is for us to condense all the feedback into one equation? Oh dear!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: swansea craig cefn parc 160 m asl
  • Location: swansea craig cefn parc 160 m asl

Another GW claim that Polar bears would become extinct due to ever decreasing Arctic ice can be laid to rest, one by one GW predictions can binned,http://polarbearscience.com/2013/07/15/global-population-of-polar-bears-has-increased-by-2650-5700-since-2001

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dunolly in country Victoria .. Australia
  • Weather Preferences: snow for sking or a mild spring
  • Location: Dunolly in country Victoria .. Australia

BNS

 

Theodor landscheidt has a research paper on lag time between solar and global temp'

 

Theodor Landscheidt

Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity,

Proceedings of 1st Solar & Space Weather Euroconference, 'The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate',
Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Tenerife, Spain, 25-29 September 2000 (ESA SP-463, December 2000)

 

 Abstract.

Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index since 1868, are closely correlated with global temperature ( r = 0.96; P < 10-7). Geomagnetic activity leads temperature by 4 to 8 years. Allowing for this temperature lag, an outstanding aa peak around 1990 could explain the high global temperature in 1998. After 1990 the geomagnetic aa data show a steep decline comparable to the decrease between 1955 and 1967, followed by falling temperatures from 1961 through 1973 in spite of growing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This points to decreasing global temperature during the next 10 years.

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/SolarWind.html

 

 

Edited by crikey
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

Whilst I don't agree with the end of it, this is a very interesting guest post on the Judith Curry blog http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/13/unforced-variability-and-the-global-warming-slow-down/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: swansea craig cefn parc 160 m asl
  • Location: swansea craig cefn parc 160 m asl

Whilst I don't agree with the end of it, this is a very interesting guest post on the Judith Curry blog http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/13/unforced-variability-and-the-global-warming-slow-down/

Yes if GW correct that"s a big if there"s over the top reaction the quote that i like Even if our ocean temperature measurements of deep warming of hundredths of a degree over the last 50 years are correct, and mostly due to human greenhouse gas emissions, they probably do not support the IPCC’s pessimistic view of future warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: west croydon (near lombard)
  • Location: west croydon (near lombard)

The submarine volcano eruption at the island of El Hierro: physical-chemical perturbation and biological response

 

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120705/srep00486/full/srep00486.html

 

have a read

 

some interesting findings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

Yes if GW correct that"s a big if there"s over the top reaction the quote that i like Even if our ocean temperature measurements of deep warming of hundredths of a degree over the last 50 years are correct, and mostly due to human greenhouse gas emissions, they probably do not support the IPCC’s pessimistic view of future warming.

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with the link I posted? What am I missing?

 

When you quote somebody, it's good practise to give a link to the quote, so here, I'll do it for you:)

http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/18/u-s-senate-hearing-climate-change-its-happening-now/

Edited by pottyprof
You know why....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

Whilst I don't agree with the end of it, this is a very interesting guest post on the Judith Curry blog&nbsp;http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/13/unforced-variability-and-the-global-warming-slow-down/

Yes, that's a pretty good post, and, in my view, fairly neutral in terms that it discusses problems not from a specific point of view, but that they exist, and that there's still work to do. Edited by Sparkicle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

What do you call a person that merely reports on the science they do when they find 'alarming, doomladen' events beginning to occur and know that we are travelling in a direction that will only make the situation worse??

 

That's precisely the problem, GW.

 

As you said you are reporting on events that are (at least) alarming.

 

This sort of thing is one of the primary reasons why the scientific consensus has not been more widely accepted by the general public. Leave for one side who is right, who is wrong, who is this, or who is that, you are trying to attribute events to climate. This sort of muddle-headed-thinking, vocally, and vociferously, across the political and scientific establishments has done more to damage climatology than any other area of discourse. Certainly more than ClimageGate (of which all of the alleged activities were found to be completely untrue)

 

I applaud you for standing on top of the hill and pointing out 'unusual' events. But you are attributing them to changing climate which, crucially, all of the peer-review evidence summarily dismisses such attribution as impossible. You seem to have forgotten to read those papers, didn't know they exist, or, worse, you are deliberately misleading your readers.

 

Of course, and much much much worse your sin is, attributing events to climate means it works the other way around; and now interested third parties can now join you on top of the hill and point to other event extremes such as cold winters, excessive snow, all indicative of a cooling climate. Don't worry, you are not alone: Greenpeace, at least - probably the most guilty organisation of the proliferation of CO2  output due to their opposition of nuclear power stations - attributed Katrina directly to human-induced climate change saying that it is a 'wake-up call about the dangers of continued global fossil fuel dependency' Al Gore suggested that the warmer Caribbean Waters (a weather event) because of climate change made the storm stronger, and thus the damage greater contrary to all scientific evidence to the contrary. The list is endless .... you are not alone: you are in the company of Nobel Prize winners amongst other accolades.

 

This sort of faulty attribution has done more to increase CO2 emmissions by inaction than other kind of reasoning throughout the whole debate. After all, who really wants to pump out human emmissions if we can possibly help it?

 

If you continue to feed the 'other side' such inaction will be capable of going on well past my lifetime. And I, for one, am sick and tired of reading why one foot of snow in Bedfordshire last January means that the climate isn't warming.

Edited by Sparkicle
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

I thought this was the sceptics threads but I see it's been hijacked once more.Posted Image

Where? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

It take it you do mean 'sceptical' as in sceptical? Trouble is: anyone who even tries to be sceptical gets attacked from both sides of the divide...

 

But, I guess you are right...So, in future, if anyone want's to deconstruct another's post, kindly copy it into the appropriate thread?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

My post was put in the Manmade thread and was moved here. I guess, as an opinion piece, it doesn't belong in either.

 

As it's valid in both threads, how about copying and pasting it into the other one too?

 

IMO, you've made an important and valid point. Exaggeration from both sides of the divide has caused so much damage in this debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

My post was put in the Manmade thread and was moved here. I guess, as an opinion piece, it doesn't belong in either.

That was me...But then, it is about the most sceptical post I've seen...Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Yes, Pete: but sceptical, not sceptical if you know what I mean!

 I know exactly what you mean...However, I remain sceptical!Posted Image 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...