Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/full/443141a.html

 

That might very well come back to hunt people when the CERN cosmic ray and cloud experiment starts to prove successful.

 

Which leads to the following hypothesis

 

The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.

 

Some actual science going on a CERN to prove a DIRECT link between solar cosmic rays and the recent global warming.

 

Unless wikicat thinks CERN and physics experiments are the equivalent of holocaust deniers etc.

 

It is far from obvious that solar cosmic rays would increase cloud cover. The paper that made that suggestion has been shown to have been manipulated and false, and one of its authors now accepts those flaws.

 

Even if there is a small correlation, it would have no impact on what we do know about the greenhouse effect and what increasing CO2 levels will do.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sun-sets-on-sceptics-case-against-climate-change-1839875.html

[spinac]

Can anyone point to the records that began in 1860.

 

There's some raw data here ... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

and more here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

 

I'm not an expert in the field and I'm guessing neither are you, so we need to place our trust in those who have the expertise to analyse this raw data and who can trace their conclusions back to that data which is available for examination by others.

 

You see I could never have personally come to conclusions like the following, but I trust those who, in saying such things provide the data on which the conclusion is based.

 

Global surface air temperature has increased about 0.5°C from the minimum of mid-1992, a year after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Both a land-based surface air temperature record and a combined land and marine temperature index place the meteorological year 1995 at approximately the same level as 1990, previously the warmest year in the period of instrumental data. As El Nino warming was absent in 1995, the solar cycle near a minimum, and ozone depletion near record levels, the observed high temperature supports the contention of an underlying global warming trend.

 

I've yet to hear from a climate change denier who can point to data that stands up to scrutiny.

[retep]

There's some raw data here ... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

and more here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

 

I'm not an expert in the field and I'm guessing neither are you, so we need to place our trust in those who have the expertise to analyse this raw data and who can trace their conclusions back to that data which is available for examination by others.

 

You see I could never have personally come to conclusions like the following, but I trust those who, in saying such things provide the data on which the conclusion is based.

 

Global surface air temperature has increased about 0.5°C from the minimum of mid-1992, a year after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Both a land-based surface air temperature record and a combined land and marine temperature index place the meteorological year 1995 at approximately the same level as 1990, previously the warmest year in the period of instrumental data. As El Nino warming was absent in 1995, the solar cycle near a minimum, and ozone depletion near record levels, the observed high temperature supports the contention of an underlying global warming trend.

 

I've yet to hear from a climate change denier who can point to data that stands up to scrutiny.

 

If there's a claim that it's the hottest since 1860 you'd expect the source of the claim to be available, where is it, whats it based on.

[spinac]

If there's a claim that it's the hottest since 1860 you'd expect the source of the claim to be available, where is it, whats it based on.

 

Follow the links man! You have to click 'n' read some things for yourself.

 

Here's a starter: GHCN is the Global Historical Climatology Network. HadISST1 is The Met Office Hadley Centre's sea ice and sea surface temperature (SST) data set

 

The claims about climate change are based on the published numbers. Add them up for yourself. Find the average. Look at the change over time. Tell us what you find.

 

And if you don't like these figures, point us to your reliable data sources so we can do some calculations on them.

[JIbbo]

There's some raw data here ... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

and more here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

 

I'm not an expert in the field and I'm guessing neither are you, so we need to place our trust in those who have the expertise to analyse this raw data and who can trace their conclusions back to that data which is available for examination by others.

 

You see I could never have personally come to conclusions like the following, but I trust those who, in saying such things provide the data on which the conclusion is based.

 

Global surface air temperature has increased about 0.5°C from the minimum of mid-1992, a year after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Both a land-based surface air temperature record and a combined land and marine temperature index place the meteorological year 1995 at approximately the same level as 1990, previously the warmest year in the period of instrumental data. As El Nino warming was absent in 1995, the solar cycle near a minimum, and ozone depletion near record levels, the observed high temperature supports the contention of an underlying global warming trend.

 

I've yet to hear from a climate change denier who can point to data that stands up to scrutiny.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/

 

It's been one of the coldest starts to winter ever recorded (based on Central England Temperature (CET) records which started in 1659), with numerous local records broken.

 

Such has been the intensity of the cold, rivers across Yorkshire have begun to freeze over, a rare phenomenon in itself, but virtually unheard of so early in the winter season.

 

i know weather isn't temperature but to have 300 year old temperature records broken by COLD not HEAT.

 

Doesn't fit the theory of GLOBAL warming. I.e. average temperatures across the earth increasing on average everywhere in a direct relationship to CO2

 

Neither does the following fit "Global Warming"

 

If the globe can cool naturally why can't it warm naturally as well ?

 

Cooling doesn't fit the scientific hypothesis that "increased emissions of CO2 increases the earth average global temperature" which is the premis of AGW.

 

As GLOBAL CO2 increases temperatures are falling.

[JIbbo]

It is far from obvious that solar cosmic rays would increase cloud cover. The paper that made that suggestion has been shown to have been manipulated and false, and one of its authors now accepts those flaws.

 

Even if there is a small correlation, it would have no impact on what we do know about the greenhouse effect and what increasing CO2 levels will do.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sun-sets-on-sceptics-case-against-climate-change-1839875.html

 

The experiment results indicated recently from CERN superseding your wikilink by 12 month disprove that.

 

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/12/sunny_days_for_cloud_experimen.html

 

15th December i.e two days old....

 

 

The article linked to in nature was demonstrating that the actual model in cern was WORKING and that clouds were forming based on cosmic rays.

 

The paper you quote of being 'discredited' isn't and was argued against due to the cloud modeling data and numerous revisions and corrections publised since that original paper to support the theory.

 

Unfortunately wikicat the evidence in CERN is groundbreaking. Clouds are ineffect being formed on the basis of the cosmic ray theory.

 

That was what the CERN experiment was designed for.

 

To test and prove / disprove the cosmic ray theory of climate change.

 

Obviously if the experiment was a failure I'm sure it would have been front page news.....

Edited December 17, 2010 by JIbbo

[JIbbo]

Follow the links man! You have to click 'n' read some things for yourself.

 

Here's a starter: GHCN is the Global Historical Climatology Network. HadISST1 is The Met Office Hadley Centre's sea ice and sea surface temperature (SST) data set

 

The claims about climate change are based on the published numbers. Add them up for yourself. Find the average. Look at the change over time. Tell us what you find.

 

And if you don't like these figures, point us to your reliable data sources so we can do some calculations on them.

 

Hows this for a few stats...

 

It is already clear: the average temperatures in Germany this year (8.1 degrees Celsius) were 0.2 degrees below the long term measured average of 8.3 degrees. "I fear we will end up still significantly lower by the end of the year", said Globig. The long-term average is actually the average of all German stations from 1961 to 1990.

 

Were even falling BELOW average now, now above.

 

How does that fit into AGW ?

[spinac]

Hows this for a few stats...

 

It is already clear: the average temperatures in Germany this year (8.1 degrees Celsius) were 0.2 degrees below the long term measured average of 8.3 degrees. "I fear we will end up still significantly lower by the end of the year", said Globig. The long-term average is actually the average of all German stations from 1961 to 1990.

 

Were even falling BELOW average now, now above.

 

How does that fit into AGW ?

 

Hmm interesting. What else do you have? Something on long term global averages maybe?

[spinac]

i know weather isn't temperature but to have 300 year old temperature records broken by COLD not HEAT.

 

Doesn't fit the theory of GLOBAL warming. I.e. average temperatures across the earth increasing on average everywhere in a direct relationship to CO2

 

You do understand averages don't you? If the average goes up that doesn't mean that every bit of data will follow the average?

 

As noted before local cooling may occur during global warming. Climate change will cause disruptions to convection currents in the atmosphere and the oceans. High pressure blocks can cause unusual and prolonged local weather variations.

 

Just 'cos we're sitting in an icy draught at the moment doesn't mean the whole planet is experiencing the same.

 

If the globe can cool naturally why can't it warm naturally as well ?

 

It can. it does. Factoring in all the natural variations and filtering out the "noise" there is still an underlying man made trend.

 

Cooling doesn't fit the scientific hypothesis that "increased emissions of CO2 increases the earth average global temperature" which is the premis of AGW.

 

As GLOBAL CO2 increases temperatures are falling.

 

Are you saying GLOBAL AVERAGE temperatures are falling? Where did you get that data from? Give us your source.

 

Or are you making your own wild leap from a short term local bit of data to a long term global trend?

[retep]

Follow the links man! You have to click 'n' read some things for yourself.

 

Here's a starter: GHCN is the Global Historical Climatology Network. HadISST1 is The Met Office Hadley Centre's sea ice and sea surface temperature (SST) data set

 

The claims about climate change are based on the published numbers. Add them up for yourself. Find the average. Look at the change over time. Tell us what you find.

 

And if you don't like these figures, point us to your reliable data sources so we can do some calculations on them.

 

Not good enough fella, you,re the one sticking the information up, now back it up.