Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[spinac]

Which bit of the post where German temperatures were at a 40 year LOW didn't you get ?

 

It's the bit where you think that Germany = World

[JIbbo]

Germany eh? What about Canada?

 

Have you factored in the +10C anomaly in Hudson Bay?

 

The extreme warmth in Northeast Canada is undoubtedly related to the fact that Hudson Bay was practically ice free. In the past, including the GISS base period 1951-1980, Hudson Bay was largely ice-covered in November.

 

Trumped ya.

 

Don't know about "Extrema Warmth" You know that +10C is plus 10 from AVERAGE -25 Degree temperatures right ?

 

Not +10 as an absolute temperature ?

 

NASA GISS removed Arctic and Southern Ocean sea surface temperature data and then used 1200km smoothing that uses land stations to refill in the data (resulting in a warming)

 

So a thermometer on the land, probably next to a heater, was then used to 1200km of surface area resulting in said temperature.........

[JIbbo]

It's the bit where you think that Germany = World

 

Germany is kinda large though at 137,858 square miles

 

and you would have thought that it would have seen a tough of warming by now ?

[spinac]

Germany is kinda large though at 137,858 square miles

 

and you would have thought that it would have seen a tough of warming by now ?

 

You're persisiting with the notion that with a global average increase that everywhere will see an increase.

 

No it won't.

 

We will still have weather variations.

 

You try to include a local 4C drop in temperature but then discount a +10C local increase in temperature. (I didn't say Hudson Bay was at +10C)

 

Here's where I got the data from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

 

If you look at the map, you'll see areas of green and blue where temperatures are below their average. But how much of the globe is orange and red?

 

This is what we're talking about. Global warming.

 

AND when you look at all the factors that affect temperature change over a long period, there is a significant contribution from man's activities and that contribution will become even greater.

 

the fact that we're experiencing some cooling in Northern mid-latitudes does not alter this fact.

 

Globally November 2010 is the warmest November in the GISS record.

Edited December 17, 2010 by spinac

[Wildcat]

I am not sure why you quote a specific scientist (Monckton?) in your reply. I have not used him to support my arguement in this debate. Perhaps you are trying to justify your earlier categorisation of those who disagree with you as "wrong headed" or "climate denialists". And I dont know why you are talking about Lizardmen? How did you manage to get them into the debate?

 

You are clouding the issue . The issue is that mans' contribution to global warming is unproven. Further to that; whether it is proven or not, British families can have only a miniscule affect on the global situation. Given that that is the case it is unacceptable that poor (and not so poor) British families should be required to pay real money for what can only be a gesture to the global situation.

 

The threat of increased fuel bills and higher taxes to fund the installation of low carbon power generation is a frightening reality for people today. Your personal opinions about the tax system are not relevant to this debate.

 

You are very good at quoting scientific papers to support your theories but in this debate as in so many others the scientists often reflect the views of those funding them. You suggest that the antiglobal warming lobby is funded by elements within the USA Republican Party. My understanding is that they are funded by the Oil Industry while the pro.lobby is funded by the Nuclear industry. Either way there is loads of money available to scientists in this field.

 

I dont know how much of a scientist you are but we have all seen cases where scientists have propagated a scare story and made lots of money out of it. Remember the Millenium Bug, remember CJD, remember Swine Flu or Avian Flu. The list goes on.

 

Whether global warming is manade or not, the important thing is its effects and how they threaten communities. Investment must be made in dealing with this no matter what the origins of global warming are.

 

Since you were the one criticising my usage of the term, Monckton is very relevant because he is an example of who I mean when I talk about Climate Denialists. It is a nonsense to criticise my usage of the term without considering what I am referencing when I use it.

 

Man's contribution to the climate is proven. In the relevant scientific community it is only a few cranks that argue otherwise.

 

Costs and what we do about it, is a separate issue. Whether it is too costly to fix or costs nothing, the science would still say the same thing.

 

The Millenium Bug, CJD, Swine Flu and Avian Flu, weren't as bad as the worst case scenarios circulated in the media. But then that is precisely what the scientists predicted.... that is what worst case scenarios are. If there is anything to learn from those examples in relation to this, is the poor way that the science is reported in the media. Ben Goldachre for example spends most of his time debunking the poor reporting of science in the media. See what he says about global warming:

 

http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/copenhagen-climate-change-blah-blah/

 

Here he is running a story about the Telegraph knowingly printing falsehoods about global warming, the lies and misrepresentations are still there on their website, despite the complaints of the author of the paper they are reporting.

 

http://www.badscience.net/2009/01/the-telegraph-misrepresent-a-scientists-work-on-climate-and-then-refuse-to-correct-it-when-he-writes-to-them/

Edited December 18, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

It is far from obvious that solar cosmic rays would increase cloud cover.

 

Snip

 

 

 

**** me i know people can do 180 degrees of change of opinions but that takes some beating.

 

:hihi::hihi::hihi:

 

Something can be far from obvious and not that surprising at the same time.

 

Almost the entire range of probabilities are inbetween the two extremes of obvious and surprising.

 

None of which has to do with the fundamental point that if Cosmic rays do produce clouds then all that gives us is another forcing mechanism for the greenhouse effect. And a further reason why we (globally) need to be looking at cutting emissions.

[retep]

You're persisiting with the notion that with a global average increase that everywhere will see an increase.

 

No it won't.

 

We will still have weather variations.

 

You try to include a local 4C drop in temperature but then discount a +10C local increase in temperature. (I didn't say Hudson Bay was at +10C)

 

Here's where I got the data from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

 

If you look at the map, you'll see areas of green and blue where temperatures are below their average. But how much of the globe is orange and red?

 

This is what we're talking about. Global warming.

 

AND when you look at all the factors that affect temperature change over a long period, there is a significant contribution from man's activities and that contribution will become even greater.

 

the fact that we're experiencing some cooling in Northern mid-latitudes does not alter this fact.

 

Globally November 2010 is the warmest November in the GISS record.

 

The get out clause is a good one in that link,

 

"Figure 2(a) illustrates that there is a good chance that 2010 as a whole will be the warmest year in the GISS analysis. Even if the December global temperature anomaly is unusually cool, 2010 will at least be in a statistical tie with 2005 for the warmest year"

[JIbbo]

The get out clause is a good one in that link,

 

"Figure 2(a) illustrates that there is a good chance that 2010 as a whole will be the warmest year in the GISS analysis. Even if the December global temperature anomaly is unusually cool, 2010 will at least be in a statistical tie with 2005 for the warmest year"

 

Even the Met offices' OWN CET data shows a decade long cooling trend since 98.

 

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif

[JIbbo]

Since you were the one criticising my usage of the term, Monckton is very relevant because he is an example of who I mean when I talk about Climate Denialists. It is a nonsense to criticise my usage of the term without considering what I am referencing when I use it.

 

Man's contribution to the climate is proven. In the relevant scientific community it is only a few cranks that argue otherwise.

 

Costs and what we do about it, is a separate issue. Whether it is too costly to fix or costs nothing, the science would still say the same thing.

 

The Millenium Bug, CJD, Swine Flu and Avian Flu, weren't as bad as the worst case scenarios circulated in the media. But then that is precisely what the scientists predicted.... that is what worst case scenarios are. If there is anything to learn from those examples in relation to this, is the poor way that the science is reported in the media. Ben Goldachre for example spends most of his time debunking the poor reporting of science in the media. See what he says about global warming:

 

http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/copenhagen-climate-change-blah-blah/

 

Here he is running a story about the Telegraph knowingly printing falsehoods about global warming, the lies and misrepresentations are still there on their website, despite the complaints of the author of the paper they are reporting.

 

http://www.badscience.net/2009/01/the-telegraph-misrepresent-a-scientists-work-on-climate-and-then-refuse-to-correct-it-when-he-writes-to-them/

 

WikiCat

 

The Met Office's OWN data shows a decade long cooling trend !

 

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif

[Wildcat]

WikiCat

 

The Met Office's OWN data shows a decade long cooling trend !

 

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif

 

Do you need a dictionary definition to understand what global means?