Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[truman]

The NOAA data is only a half century worth. Can you detect trends on such a short timescale?

 

Do you have the figures for earlier ones?

[Lockjaw]

The el Nino and la Nina cycles are quite natural and periodic. What appears to be happening is that el Nino is strengthening in effect and la Nina is diminishing, both quite quickly. This is a recent phenomenon AFAIK.

 

Then ...

 

The NOAA data is only a half century worth. Can you detect trends on such a short timescale?

 

[Wildcat]

Nice try Wikicat.

 

Have you read the NOAA report, have you?

 

I never said that El Niño was the only cause of warming, I said it was a cause of the warming.

 

Are you disputing the figures from NOAA?

 

Are you disputing the fact that El Niño is a natural effect?

 

Or are you, as usual, trying to muddy the waters by attempting to insult my intelligence.

 

PS for anyone interested in the report you'll find it here.

 

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

 

What I am disputing is that any of that is a reason to disbelieve the main cause of global warming is human emissions of CO2. In just the same way that pointing to a correlation between the Sun being above the horizon has a correlation with temperature is an irrelevance.

 

The report doesn't make the claim you have given to it.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert]

What I am disputing is that any of that is a reason to disbelieve the main cause of global warming is human emissions of CO2. In just the same way that pointing to a correlation between the Sun being above the horizon has a correlation with temperature is an irrelevance.

 

The report doesn't make the claim you have given to it.

 

Yet the best the pro AGW camp can provide re CO2 (Note I didn't say man made CO2, which is a minor part of the total CO2 in the system) and temperature is a correlation; they can find no factor of causation.

 

The report makes no claims either way, it does however present us with some facts. Perhaps you find this truth a little inconvenient.

 

Did you listen to the Radio 4 debate?

 

It was interesting to hear the almost religious fervour with which the alarmists tried to 'convince' the realists that 'even if we don't understand the science we have to act NOW"

 

It was even more interesting to hear Mike Hulme backpedalling somewhat re the 'robustness' of the science, and more importantly the way in which the media reported it. However I fully support his view that both the media and the IPCC should temper it's reports a little more; with more emphasis on the uncertainty factors.

[truman]

Yet the best the pro AGW camp can provide re CO2 (Note I didn't say man made CO2, which is a minor part of the total CO2 in the system) and temperature is a correlation; they can find no factor of causation.

 

The report makes no claims either way, it does however present us with some facts. Perhaps you find this truth a little inconvenient.

 

Did you listen to the Radio 4 debate?

 

It was interesting to hear the almost religious fervour with which the alarmists tried to 'convince' the realists that 'even if we don't understand the science we have to act NOW"

 

It was even more interesting to hear Mike Hulme backpedalling somewhat re the 'robustness' of the science, and more importantly the way in which the media reported it. However I fully support his view that both the media and the IPCC should temper it's reports a little more; with more emphasis on the uncertainty factors.

 

It'll never happen too much £££££'s involved....

[Stormy]

More excellent questioning from Andrew Niel, this time asking some difficult questions to Prof Bob Watson, Cheif Scientist at DEFRA. Note how Watson admits he hasn't properly read the IPCC report (even though he used to be the chair before Pachauri) yet still advises the government on environmental matters including climate change.

[Wildcat]

Yet the best the pro AGW camp can provide re CO2 (Note I didn't say man made CO2, which is a minor part of the total CO2 in the system) and temperature is a correlation; they can find no factor of causation.

 

The greenhouse effect is well documented a reproducible through decades of laboratory experiments on CO2 absorbtion.

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

 

There is much more to the evidence than correlation.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

The report makes no claims either way, it does however present us with some facts. Perhaps you find this truth a little inconvenient.

 

I find your introduction of the report perplexing, because without it making any claims about the topic, I can't see the relevance.

 

What we do know about the cycle indicates the changes in frequency are a result of global warming, and hence describing it as "natural" as you have done is far from obvious, in fact the evidence indicates the opposite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_nino#ENSO_and_global_warming

 

Did you listen to the Radio 4 debate?

 

It was interesting to hear the almost religious fervour with which the alarmists tried to 'convince' the realists that 'even if we don't understand the science we have to act NOW"

 

It was even more interesting to hear Mike Hulme backpedalling somewhat re the 'robustness' of the science, and more importantly the way in which the media reported it. However I fully support his view that both the media and the IPCC should temper it's reports a little more; with more emphasis on the uncertainty factors.

 

I can't listen to the debate because I don't have a radio at work.

 

Your use of religious fervour for the side of the argument that has come to its view as an inevitable conclusion of the evidence and science, is as misplaced as it is possible to be. Religious fervour is normally ascribed to the side of an argument that has no scientific backing... ie the denialists.

[convert]

Yet again more links from Wikicat that link to Pro AGW sites and, of course that paragon of Truth Wikipedia !!

 

No one is disputing the greenhouse effect, however CO2 isn't the major greenhouse gas; water vapour is.

 

Also I don't see anywhere in your links that proves a rise in CO2 equates to a rise in temperature. In fact the opposite could be said. Does CO2 level lead or lag temperature increases ? I'm afraid the scientific jury is still out on that one.

 

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

 

 

I'd suggest that anyone interested in this leads / lags argument google for Milankovich Cycles.

[cgksheff]

 

 

I can't listen to the debate because I don't have a radio at work.

 

 

Don't know if you have speakers/headphones, but the BBC is available to anyone with an internet connection:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/

[Wildcat]

Yet again more links from Wikicat that link to Pro AGW sites and, of course that paragon of Truth Wikipedia !!

 

No one is disputing the greenhouse effect, however CO2 isn't the major greenhouse gas; water vapour is.

 

Also I don't see anywhere in your links that proves a rise in CO2 equates to a rise in temperature. In fact the opposite could be said. Does CO2 level lead or lag temperature increases ? I'm afraid the scientific jury is still out on that one.

 

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

 

 

I'd suggest that anyone interested in this leads / lags argument google for Milankovich Cycles.

 

Water Vapour is the main greenhouse gas, however its role in the system is to amplify the effect of CO2. Its effect increases with temperature and with CO2 in the sytsem.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

 

Yes historically CO2 does lag heat rises. Where the temperature changes are a result of changed orbits, the heat rises and CO2 in the atmosphere increases because of that rise in temperature.

 

The "scientific jury" is not out on that one, quite simply CO2 both causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

Milankovich cycle research tells us CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone and that CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet.

 

Which is all very interesting and supports global warming but I assume you raise it because you think one of these cycles could account for recent temperature rises? If so your argument depends upon increased solar heating of the earth in the last 35 years, which unfortunately for your argument is the opposite of what has been going on.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

 

You aren't trying very hard if you can't find the answers on my links they are all easy to find on the site.

 

And finally why should I bother looking for alternative source for information, when the one I am using references peer reviewed journals to support its case?

 

The fact it supports the consensus view in no way detracts from the clarity of the way it makes its arguments, or the openness with which you can see the articles discussed in the comments section. The same can not be said for your links to Watts, who I have already shown to be deliberately and intentionally misleading and who censors opposing views.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Wildcat