Did you help ruin the world?

[Fragony]

So you truly believe that all the Climatologists in the world who believe that Climate Change is real work for the UN?

Nope, only the conclusion of the climatohoaxists that work for the UN have been used, the IPCC. I believe that's also what Al Gore used for his completily annihilated movie that as you probably don't know didn't get as favorable a reception among serious scientists as it did with lobbyists.

[CountArach]

Nope, only the conclusion of the climatohoaxists that work for the UN have been used, the IPCC.

The IPCC is one of the most Conservative Climate Change panels. Everything is done through a consensus position and as such the scientists who are appointed there must all agree on every point. These include scientists from the USA, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc - countries who are largely opposed to action on Global Warming at a Governmental level. To claim that it is a tool of the UN completely misrepresents the work that it does. Further it uses no new research, it simply puts together the collated research of those who are on the panel.

[Fragony]

The IPCC is one of the most Conservative Climate Change panels. Everything is done through a consensus position and as such the scientists who are appointed there must all agree on every point. These include scientists from the USA, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc - countries who are largely opposed to action on Global Warming at a Governmental level. To claim that it is a tool of the UN completely misrepresents the work that it does. Further it uses no new research, it simply puts together the collated research of those who are on the panel.

Didn't say it is a tool it turned out their predictions are wrong, a fact that is made sure to be mentally blocked by Global warming lobbyists. They understand fully well that if you keep presenting something as a fact people will actually fall for it even when there isn't anything happening, like acid rain and global warming. Every generation has it's apocalypse crowd that is normal just human nature's desire to believe in something.

[Furunculus]

Yes, but Climatologists don't...

that's nice for them.

[CountArach]

Didn't say it is a tool it turned out their predictions are wrong, a fact that is made sure to be mentally blocked by Global warming lobbyists. They understand fully well that if you keep presenting something as a fact people will actually fall for it even when there isn't anything happening, like acid rain and global warming. Every generation has it's apocalypse crowd that is normal just human nature's desire to believe in something.

Would you care to use... you know... evidence...?

[Fragony]

Would you care to use... you know... evidence...?

How about that the earth isn't warming up?

[Devastatin Dave]

Guilt is such a silly thing for we are all guilty of something, so embrace it.

[Lord Winter]

How about that the earth isn't warming up?

Oh wow one year out of the past what is it seven or so?

[CountArach]

Oh wow one year out of the past what is it seven or so?

Not to mention it was still the 13th hottest year on record...

[Fragony]

Oh wow one year out of the past what is it seven or so?

0.6 degrees celcius since 1850 with equipment from 1850, that might be impressive to people who don't know that Antartica was once forest and Saudi-Arabia once snow but secular scientists don't mentally block that Antartica was once forest and Saudi-Arabia was once snow.

[Ironside]

Didn't say it is a tool it turned out their predictions are wrong, a fact that is made sure to be mentally blocked by Global warming lobbyists. They understand fully well that if you keep presenting something as a fact people will actually fall for it even when there isn't anything happening, like acid rain and global warming. Every generation has it's apocalypse crowd that is normal just human nature's desire to believe in something.

Yas, yes that acid rain thing caused by SO2 emissions. I wonder what happened with it. "Wanders
on the net."

US emissions from 1970
US emissions 1995 and 2004

The first SO2 regulations came at about 1970 and has progressivly been stronger. If anything, it's a big proof that noticing a problem can make sure that it's treated before it gets totally out of control.

Not to mention it was still the 13th hottest year on record...

Tenth actually.

Edit:

0.6 degrees celcius since 1850 with equipment from 1850, that might be impressive to people who don't know that Antartica was once forest and Saudi-Arabia once snow but secular scientists don't mentally block that Antartica was once forest and Saudi-Arabia was once snow.

I'm not sure about the time scale for Saudi-Arabia with a lot of snow (aka how much you'll need to consider the teutonic plate changes), but the current cold Antarctica is mainly due to the water streams that causes an effect opposite to the Gulf stream. It has been ice-free before though (there have been periods without ice on both poles), but the thing here is the rapid change and lack of knowledge on how large the change will be that's the main problem. That will cause political turmoil that can very well end up in massive refugee streams and wars.

[Fragony]

Acid rain was caused by acid rain lobbyists, acid rain doesn't exist, never did.

I'm not sure about the time scale for Saudi-Arabia with a lot of snow (aka how much you'll need to consider the teutonic plate changes), but the current cold Antarctica is mainly due to the water streams that causes an effect opposite to the Gulf stream. It has been ice-free before though (there have been periods without ice on both poles), but the thing here is the rapid change and lack of knowledge on how large the change will be that's the main problem. That will cause political turmoil that can very well end up in massive refugee streams and wars.

That sounds absolutely terrifying

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

[Fragony]

Which the Asyrians already understood when they put down the Zodiac, I guess some have a hard time catching up.

[CountArach]

Or not...

'No sun link' to climate change

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But UK scientists found there has been no significant link between cosmic rays and cloudiness in the last 20 years.

Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the University of Lancaster team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.
[...]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its vast assessment of climate science last year, concluded that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of solar variability by a factor of about 13 to one.

According to Terry Sloan, the message coming from his research is simple.

"We tried to corroborate Svensmark's hypothesis, but we could not; as far as we can see, he has no reason to challenge the IPCC - the IPCC has got it right.

"So we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions."

Or this report, written by a climate scientist...

In summary, although solar forcing is real, the implications of that are often rather overstated. Since there has been a clear history of people fooling themselves about the importance of solar-climate links, any new studies in the field need to be considered very carefully before conclusions are drawn, especially with respect the warming over recent decades, which despite all of this discussion about solar activity, is almost all related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Anyway as it turns out, that graph is false and outdated (I assume this is the same original source).

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument

[Ironside]

Only one "minor" flaw with that graph. The sunspot cycle length was shortest by around 1985 (it's an inversed scale) and has since then became longer. The temperature has increased quite a bit since that. Or to put it differently, that pattern is thrown out of the window for the last 20 years.

It was a good theory when presented in 1991 though.

BTW Fragony, wich part of acid rain haven't existed? That rain cannot be acidic? That SO2 emissions doesn't cause it? That calcinations of (some) lakes to keep them healthy (and been used to ressurect lakes suffering from mass death due to pH drop) haven't been done and is currently still being done? That marble (a very acid sensitive material) has been degenerated more in 100 years than the 1900 years before it? That an acid soil is worse to grow crops on and releases heavy metals and alumina (aka bad stuff) and also causes leaching of nutients from the soil?

Edit: source for the graph is:
E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar
activity closely associated with climate, Science 254 (1991) 698.

Not sure if that one is under dispute.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Only one "minor" flaw with that graph. The sunspot cycle length was shortest by around 1985 (it's an inversed scale) and has since then became longer. The temperature has increased quite a bit since that. Or to put it differently, that pattern is thrown out of the window for the last 20 years.

Not necessarily. Harvard Observatory.

Edit: source for the graph is:
E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar
activity closely associated with climate, Science 254 (1991) 698.

Wasn't Friis-Christensen was trying to disprove that solar activity and climate were related?

Or not...

'No sun link' to climate change

Or this report, written by a climate scientist...

Anyway as it turns out, that graph is false and outdated

O RLY?

Your second link doesn't even give an author.

Even Solanki, an alarmist, recognizes that solar activity may have an effect on temperature:

The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures...

Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

[Solar activity] can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming.

[Marshal Murat]

MIT scientists confused by methane

Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

The two lead authors of a paper published in this week's Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere.

Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun's light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth's atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.

NASA faked October Temperatures
While I don't know the reputation of the Telegraph, it does make the point that the IPCC, and by extension those sources it derives it's figures from, isn't completely unbiased.

But, to cut down on this thread, I decided to create a little graph to show the next 5 pages of this thread.

BBC Special News Report

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Climate struggle again....

If you "Global Warming is real" folks are correct (let's stipulate) and global warming is man-made as a product of the increasing use of fossil fuels and the increasing mass of humanity in general...

1. Why is warming bad? Is only the status quo c. 1800 appropriate and all other climates counter-productive to human survival?

2. What can be done about it?

3. Who has to shoulder the burden, and how much of a burden will it be?

4. What is the likelihood that it would make a significant impact?


Remember, if it all boils down to "you yanks suck and need to cut your standard of living down," that will NOT play well in Peoria.

Thoughts?

[Fragony]

NASA faked October Temperatures

How very naughty of them

[Xiahou]

How very naughty of them

Their data has been a disgrace for sometime now. It seems every year they call it the 'hottest evar' and shortly thereafter are forced to retract it. The latest incident where they just copy/pasted a warmer month's data and (surprise!) found warming, is just another in a string of screwups- deliberate or otherwise.

How is anyone supposed to take GISS temperature data seriously? Hansen is a consumate global warming zealot and has been caught peddling false data on numerous occasions.

[Xiahou]

The IPCC is one of the most Conservative Climate Change panels. Everything is done through a consensus position and as such the scientists who are appointed there must all agree on every point. These include scientists from the USA, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc - countries who are largely opposed to action on Global Warming at a Governmental level. To claim that it is a tool of the UN completely misrepresents the work that it does. Further it uses no new research, it simply puts together the collated research of those who are on the panel.

Consensus again, hmmm?

The IPCC has misled us into believing the primary claims were widely endorsed by authors and reviewers but in fact they received little support and came from a narrow self-interested coterie of climate modellers.

[Ironside]

Not necessarily. Harvard Observatory.

OMG

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The chart stops around 1980 because
the sun’s changes are presumed to operate
over two decades or longer. Yet the
period beyond 1980 is interesting
because it corresponds to the period
when the air’s carbon dioxide content
rose, and also shows a major surface
warming trend. Some say this indicates
that carbon dioxide is responsible for
the warming of the last 20 years.

No the chart stop by 1980, because after that the correlation is out of the window. That's one of most blatant leaving out disagreeing results I've seen.

One of the better pics that have it later than around 1980

Link were it was taken, gives credit to that the solar spot cycle may very well influence the climate

Simular graph from a sceptic page, notice the dip in activity at the end and its lack of correlation with the temperature

Wasn't Friis-Christensen was trying to disprove that solar activity and climate were related?

Not sure, didn't read the article, but Friis-Christensen seems to be very focsed on the effect space have on the climate on earth, currently wokring with cosmic rays.

O RLY?

Your second link doesn't even give an author.

Uhm, I take it you didn't bother read the conclutions right? Remember that post 1980-1985 thing I mentioned?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

5. Conclusions
There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar
variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some
detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was
a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century
and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism
that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates
about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in
global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability,
whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar
variation is amplified.

The Climate struggle again....

If you "Global Warming is real" folks are correct (let's stipulate) and global warming is man-made as a product of the increasing use of fossil fuels and the increasing mass of humanity in general...

1. Why is warming bad? Is only the status quo c. 1800 appropriate and all other climates counter-productive to human survival?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...ge-case&page=1
Short version (but not really said openly in the article), it's the change itself that's bad, too large global cooling would have a simular negative inpact aswell.

2. What can be done about it?

Well, you could get more energy efficient, use less fossile fuels and try to storage the CO2 somehow (converting it to something useful requires energy). Fusion power ffw.

3. Who has to shoulder the burden, and how much of a burden will it be?

Global problem, so the world should de facto shoulder the burden, otherwise it won't do any good. Hard to say how large the burden will be, but quite large in all cases.

4. What is the likelihood that it would make a significant impact?

The warming or the efforts? The warming will get significant in any case, but catastrophic in the worst case scenarios. The efforts will most likely be too small to be of high significance though (atleast for the first decades, particually considering that there seems to be a lag between emissions and temperature change)), but in worst case scenario (nothing happens) it's still a lot of reasearch that's beneficial in other areas (energy efficiency for example) and in the best case scenario it will prevent a catastrophe.

Remember, if it all boils down to "you yanks suck and need to cut your standard of living down," that will NOT play well in Peoria.

Thoughts?

Well, what's Peoria?

[CountArach]

Consensus again, hmmm?

He works for the Australian Climate Science Coalition, a spin-off of a right-wing Corporate-funded think tank (Corporations include most of the major Australian Subsidiaries of oil producers). As such his words are utterly meaningless to me.

[Fragony]

He works for the Australian Climate Science Coalition, a spin-off of a right-wing Corporate-funded think tank (Corporations include most of the major Australian Subsidiaries of oil producers). As such his words are utterly meaningless to me.

But obviously there is no consensus, can't just decide there is consenus it doesn't work like that. You can decide to have steak for dinner, can't decide the earth is warming up

[Lord Winter]

I'm curious what all the skeptics think is the motive for this apparent evil manipulating secret circle of climatologists. Or did they just decide to do this for fun?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm curious what all the septics think is the motive for this appearent evil minipulating secert circle of climatoligists. Or did they just decide to do this for fun?

Personally, I consider septics to be poisonous.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I'm curious what all the septics think is the motive for this appearent evil minipulating secert circle of climatoligists. Or did they just decide to do this for fun?

Rumor has it the grass is greener over the septics...

[Lord Winter]

Fixed the mispelling, my spelling skills have never been good.

[Fragony]

I'm curious what all the skeptics think is the motive for this apparent evil manipulating secret circle of climatologists. Or did they just decide to do this for fun?

Why would mass hysteria need a motive. And why would lobbyists want political power, well that one is somewhat easier. These lobbies are as powerful now as the catholic church was during the dark ages that's why they get away with this.