Its what you cited in your first post. Some websites http://www.icr.org/ All of which contradict your claim http://creationwiki.org http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ www.discovery.org/ Gee who knew overturning science would be so easy
Those links were about the Alarmist use of popular Media which I do not normally read, to make my point. You should be a Global Warming Scientist I think. Perfect qualifications. Missing the point completely PHD, BSC, Hons. Or is it me being silly? I'm arguing with a ghost. http://forums.mydigitallife.net/thr...e-world-or-not?p=695814&viewfull=1#post695814 And here's a quote from me
In Modernity a similar debate in "Humanities" starts from Machiavelli, who thinks he found the equivalent of gravity in his area - namely, power. However, neither Humanities, not "Natural" sciences can go very far with such presumption, as we have seen subsequently. But many still live on such presumptions, sadly... It's easier if one has a "magic wand" that solves everything... To be fair, though. I think R29k was lending himself freely, to play a bit of a Devil's advocate role... Just to kick start the thread, i.e. the debate a bit more... Which was cool of him, I think.... (I'm guilty of the same "mischief", frequently... )
Speaking of missing the point just because you have found a scientist who disagrees with the current scientific consensus does not invalidate said consensus. Its not about what this scientist believes or his qualifications its about what he can prove. If the people you quoted truly believe the current consensus to be wrong then they need to get off their blogs and prove their claims. Put it through peer review and turn the whole claim on its head not post a blog online because to do the opposite is to subvert the scientific process at which point their opinion is as valid as the butchers.
That's not a valid argument. Nobody believed Giordano Bruno or Copernicus or others like them 'cause the "current scientific consensus" was WRONG. Global warming made by humans? The best lie ever! Wake up, people!!!
Well, there is obviously no "current scientific consensus"! Some are genuinely worried that what we have done and what we are doing and especially the cumulative effect of it all may well be significant enough to cause serious damage to various ecosystems and we are a part of it... Some are worried that the data is insufficient to jump to far-reaching conclusions... Some are worried that their companies'/sponsors' profits are at risk... But obviously - no consensus. So, go figure...
Socrate, we've already been through that before, with Sid and me explaining the ABC to you - just drop it, you're gonna do yourself an injury... You are usually and consistently coming up with irrational, mystifying stuff and you tried this before - putting yourself alongside Bruno and co. Look, they were the ones who were going against your mystifying stuff, so this is the ultimate piss-take... really... What is most worrying is that you're now on the completely wrong side of the fence, given your usual mystifications - perplexing to see you on this side of the argument... really...
@gorski, relax - I won't engage in a pointless debate like this. I let you, the geniuses, to debate over it.
Same straw man argument!!! Humankind’s contribution to our current global warming is not controversial science, it is controversial because energy industries have employed the same tactics for example, people, who're once worked for tobacco companies trying to convince the public that cigarette smoking is safe. We do not think 100 years is a long time, and do not limit our knowledge and understanding to the last two centuries. Scientists from several disciplines have studied different lines of evidence showing our climate for hundreds of millions of years. How else could we know the temperatures and amount of CO2 in the atmosphere during the time of the dinosaurs? The rate of change is unprecedented. If we stop producing CO2 immediately the climate will keep changing. Indeed, we may have already past a tipping point where anything we do will not stop climate change, but continuing business as usual will keep accelerating the rate of the change. Yes, we need to talk about surviving a changing climate. I think the solution involves drawing down our population, probably to the same level as human population in the mid 19th Century. I do not foresee that would be happening voluntarily. It does not matter if we do not draw down our population. The vast majority of the water on Earth is poisonous, and we are deleting our aquifers at an alarming rate. We cannot continue feeding 6/7 billion people if we do not have enough water to grow crops. Another problem is oxygen depletion. Very few people talk about this, but all these people inhaling oxygen and exhaling CO2 contribute to climate change, and also reduce the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere. Think about that once for a few minutes. More people = less oxygen to breathe.
The UK Met Office has made a worrying prediction for 2013 and http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast Except... In my time zone CET, 2012 isn't over yet so how can they claim they have forecasted the temperatures for 2012 correctly? Following this link http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/global-temperatures-2012 you can see that 2012 doesn't include November or December and Novembers Global Temperatures dropped slightly. Oh well... musn't let a few missing facts get in the way of claiming AGW must we? Perhaps I shouldn't be too concerned about the 2013 claim either. Media link quoting the above "facts" http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/21/met-office-2013-warmest-years
Is that to me or them? I know the difference. So perhaps you mean them. And I Agree they should learn.
You, You cite a two month period as evidence that global warming isn't happening. Apart from being a texas sharpshooter fallacy it shows an ignorance of the difference between weather and climate. Show us a 100 year sample of global temperatures oh wait you cant. There is no need to fabricate evidance for AGW because the science is on our side http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/ . Your side not so much http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A
Why are you consistantly missing the point being made? Why don't you read the posts properly? I do not claim Global Warming isn't happening in my post. I am stating that the facts are being mis-represented. Therefore the conclusions being drawn are invalid as they are based on incomplete facts. Why is it up to me to produce 100 year Global Data? Why did you throw that in? I don't need it to make my point about the Met Office facts. You seem confused yet again. My side? Your side? What are you on about? Science is not on any side. Science is the pursuit of facts about the physical world not about sides. You seem even more confused yet again! For what it's worth. Global Temperature Reconstructions http://www.ncasi.org/publications/detail.aspx?id=3025 (Original Loehle) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Loehle_McCulloch.pdf (Revised/Corrected Loehle) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/ And Loehle 2007 (www.ncasi.org) and Dr. Roy Spencer show temperatures 1000 years ago were warmer than today. Oops! Must be all the Danelaw SUV's being used and industrial waste gases. This link shows temperatures have risen higher than 1000 years ago but the findings have been shown to be of dubious quality by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/jones-mann.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy 5.5 Million Year Temperature Reconstruction. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/ Since you've introduced the topic about a 100 year Global Temperature dataset I'd like to discuss this. The GISS Global Temperature Dataset, well respected by many? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts dSST.txt An archive copy from May 2012. View attachment giss.txt Mmm. Now, 1962 quarters are 2,4,0,3 (0.01 Celsius anomaly, base period 1951-1980 of 14C) but in May they were 3,5,0,4. Wasn't 1962 really 3,5,0,4 or not? It's not like "Oops, we've found an error in this years data". 1962 was measured 50 years ago. The data has been available for scrutiny for 50 years. Why does it change now? Looking in more detail you can see many revisions, up and down but mostly down prior to 1981 making olders years appear colder than they were reported say a year ago. 1960 was 8,-16,0,1 and now is 8,-17,0,0. After 1980 the adjustments to years seem to be mainly +ve making them appear even more warmer than they did in May. 1981 was 32,28,27,12 and now is 33,29,28,13. Similar +ve adjustments have been applied to many temperatues after 1981. Why are these adjustments being made? Now you can now see why the current year is very likely to be the "Hottest Ever" in the last say 20 years. So, does Global Warming exist? Well, in December 2012 the year 1981 "warmed" from 32,28,27,12 to 33,29,28,13 since May 2012. So the answer must be "Yes". And last but not least on this item, the GISS dataset began in 1880 which is 132 years not including the incomplete 2012. The base period 1951-1980 is 14C (57F) so add this to the anomalies (anomaly x 0.01C) to get actual temperatures. With reference to your 800 Year CO2 lag video. I agree, orbital forcing causes the end of a Glacial Period and then CO2 takes over. But "something" natural has always caused this warming to end. See this graph showing glaciation cycles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg Does anybody know what the trigger for the end of each Interglacial is? Is it included in any models? Perhaps everybody stopped using their SUV's. Also notice we seem to be very close to the maximum CO2 and Temperatues prior to the start of the next Glacial period.
I found an even older archive which shows that as years go by older temperatures are reduced. 1962 in September 2005 was 6,4,-3,7. Which is an adjustment of -3,-1,+3,-3 which makes a total for the year of -4 (x 0.1C) adjusted in 2012. http://web.archive.org/web/20050914112019/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt What I want to know is what is going on and why? To me it seems suspicious and whilst it seems suspicious I am not willing to accept the conclusions based on these data. @RaymondTH 1 - I've not claimed Global Warming is not happening. 2 - I've not confused Climate with Weather. 3 - None of the links are from the popular press. 4 - I have shown you that a 100+ Year dataset of actual Global Temperatures does exist, although I do have my doubts about it. 5 - I have not taken any sides in this, I just question the facts and the interpretations of them, which is good science. If they stand up to scrutiny then the results are more likely to be correct and more confident conclusions can be drawn from them.
Me again analysing the GISS dataset again. The graph giss1 is a measure of the change in adjustments made to each year between 2005 and 2012. It doesn't really show much in itself except that the adjustments are not flat. The 1970's get more -ve in 2012 than they were in 2005. What does this to the warming trend? Graph giss2 shows that the 2005 curve has become steeper in 2012 meaning the rate of warming for all years has increased, even for those in the early 1900's. I do not understand the reason behind these adjustment but I do understand the result. That is that Global Warming appears to have increased even for all years going back to 1880 when compared to the trend in 2005.