Bill Shoe...that retort deserves a virtual beer. Cheers
You are selling your opinions as being equal to my facts. You are wrong on that, and you post no data to back up your position about climate change. Now you back pedal in the face of having nothing substantive to offer yet you still hold that your information that you pulled from who knows where ais just as valid as factual information peer reviewed scientific studied done worldwide. The question of climate change is that the increase of CO2 release into the atmosphere coupled with the massive deforestation of the planet and has shifted the GLOBAL average temperature enough to markedly increase the rate at which the polar ice caps are melting, thereby causing rising sea levels and fundamentally changing the climate. It's not much, it's a matter of 1 or 2 c that makes this difference. The research I linked shows that CO2 increased generation over the years is the primary reason. This isn't up for debate, so show data or back away. Because being the butt of abuse isn't for having a position, it's for having a position that is wrong and choosing to sell it here as being scientific fact.aral wrote: ↑09 Jan 2020, 23:06It seems as if I am to be the butt of abuse for stating actual facts. There is no need for me to direct others to papers etc as many papers have been written for and against the subject. I am not claiming that there is not warming, but what I am saying is that it is a natural and cyclical event in the formation and evolution of the earth. and yes, there are many articles about some of the arctic glaciers actually growing and only the other day, there was news that a glacier in patagonia was growing but the reasons were not known.
As this is an open forum, I am as entitled as anyone to express my views and knowledge, and if some dont like it....tough ! But no need for orders to "step back".
Lets agree to disagree, but do leave yourself open to other educated viewpoints.
Not sure what you're position here is, but to take your rogue wave example. That's is scientific methodology in process. You position an idea and if other people can't shoot your idea down with their data, and every experiment and measurement that you provide supports your idea, then that idea becomes the de facto prevailing theory. It doesn't mean that someone can't come up later with new data to prove otherwise, such as the rogue waves.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑10 Jan 2020, 14:05natural climate change is always here - and has killed millions in historical (ie recent) times
but no-one is saying that manmade climate change doesn't exist
(though at school we were taught that climate didn't change except that man was probably causing global cooling)
there's continuous fakery in temperature measurements - to make the warmist testimony look neat
eg NOAA and others refuse to adjust their 'measurements' even for manmade interference like building stuff nearby
one frequent poster here has justified this as necessary - at least he's being honest
until recently the year 1800 was the datum for judging warming - now suddenly it's become 1850 (to make things seem worse)
us oldies have been lied to so much we are revolted by the new fashion for people believing what they're told
eg for 100 years there was expert consensus (in oceanography) enforcing the doctrine that 'rogue waves' didn't exist
then 20 years ago (introduction of satellite-based radar measuring waves) the expert consensus was destroyed overnight
maybe some of our posters have hands-on knowledge of events in Australia ?
and presumably those planting trillions of trees in temperate countries should include big fire-breaks
i suppose there can be an age factor, but it's that young people don't have to remember a few facts, we look stuff up all the time. So when i search "climate change evidence" i get lots and lots of evidence! Apparently our brains have different proportions because of using them differently like this. So i have plenty of choice and i see good and bad sources and i can pick for example the UK Met Office, who explain:Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑10 Jan 2020, 14:05natural climate change is always here - and has killed millions in historical (ie recent) times
but no-one is saying that manmade climate change doesn't exist
(though at school we were taught that climate didn't change except that man was probably causing global cooling)
there's continuous fakery in temperature measurements - to make the warmist testimony look neat
eg NOAA and others refuse to adjust their 'measurements' even for manmade interference like building stuff nearby
one frequent poster here has justified this as necessary - at least he's being honest
until recently the year 1800 was the datum for judging warming - now suddenly it's become 1850 (to make things seem worse)
us oldies have been lied to so much we are revolted by the new fashion for people believing what they're told
eg for 100 years there was expert consensus (in oceanography) enforcing the doctrine that 'rogue waves' didn't exist
then 20 years ago (introduction of satellite-based radar measuring waves) the expert consensus was destroyed overnight
See? so it's the suddenly rapid rate of change that's the big red flag, as @TAG is showing perfectly in that graphHow are humans changing the climate?
In the 11,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the average temperature across the world was stable at around 14°C. The Industrial Revolution began in the mid-1800s when humans began to burn fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas for fuel.
Burning fossil fuels produces energy, but also releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous monoxide into the air. Over time, large quantities of these gases have built up in the atmosphere.
For example, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose by 40% during the 20th and 21st century and is now over 400ppm (parts per million). This level of carbon dioxide is higher than at any time in the past 800,000 years.
I fail to understand what you're trying to argue here. What is your point? That because temperatures are increasing, that it must be in fact caused by mankind (looking at ~100 years of data over Earth's 4.5 billion lifespan)?TAG wrote: ↑10 Jan 2020, 15:40This is fact. If it's coming from some magical "cycle" that's been happening for millennia in our planet then it is up to the people making the claims as such to prove what the cycle is what is causing it and provide the historical data and how they came to that data. AKA Scientific peer review. Something which I've seen no one provide here. A curious coincidence I would say.
Excellent points, now show me the scientific data that supports these comments.Phil wrote: ↑19 Jan 2020, 18:00I fail to understand what you're trying to argue here. What is your point? That because temperatures are increasing, that it must be in fact caused by mankind (looking at ~100 years of data over Earth's 4.5 billion lifespan)?TAG wrote: ↑10 Jan 2020, 15:40This is fact. If it's coming from some magical "cycle" that's been happening for millennia in our planet then it is up to the people making the claims as such to prove what the cycle is what is causing it and provide the historical data and how they came to that data. AKA Scientific peer review. Something which I've seen no one provide here. A curious coincidence I would say.
Has earth ever had "spikes" of increase in temperatures over its lifespan? In the last 200 years? 500? 1000? 10'000? 100'000? 1 million years? Yes, no?
Has the sun always been consistent? What about earth's eccentricity?
This is my thoughts aswell, very well described.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑10 Jan 2020, 13:30Even if the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is incorrect, there is still the very real issue of resource wastage and environmental damage / species extinction that is real. Some seem to think that it's ok to maintain environmentally damaging lifestyles, presumably because they don't like the idea of changing. The big issue is that several billion people look at western lifestyles and think "I'd like some of that" (because it's advertised to them, of course). If all of those people were able to have that lifestyle, we'd destroy the planet, environmentally speaking.
Perhaps it is, maybe it isn't. Either way, CO2 is not a pollutant. It's comical to think otherwise, even at the extremely minute quantities that it exists in the air. My trees don't seem to mind. You might want to think twice before you crack that next beer.