Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[bothyman]

 

I see you've linked to the infamous and thoroughly discredited hockey stick chart - so beloved by the warmist lobby and the IPCC.

 

Mann's "hockey stick" has been replicated many times using different proxies. All of them confirm his findings.

[Anarchon]

Because of the sun's low output we should be cooling.

 

Do you agree with any of these points?

CO2 is a green house gas and more in the atmosphere means higher temperatures.

Fossil fuels release CO2 that has been locked away for millions and years.

Pollution of our oceans affects the ability of phytoplankton to remove CO2

Deforestation affects the forests ability to remove CO2.

 

If not why not?

If so why do you believe these manmade problems haven’t affected our climate?

 

My bold.

 

I suggest you read up on the Modern Maximum cycle of solar activity. It suggests the exact opposite of what you've put above.

 

Nobody is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that there is a correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the link to warmer climates. What is in dispute is the degree of impact we're having on the climate especially given the other natural factors that are going on at the same time. Climate change is all relative depending on which starting point in time to use.

 

Phytoplankton is responsible only for a very small amount of global CO2 absorption. The ability of the oceans to dissolve CO2 directly is one of the largest CO2 sinks on the planet.

[bothyman]

My bold.

 

I suggest you read up on the Modern Maximum cycle of solar activity. It suggests the exact opposite of what you've put above.

 

 

Solar activity peaked in the 50's. What's been causing the warming since then?

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

[maxmaximus]

My bold.

 

I suggest you read up on the Modern Maximum cycle of solar activity. It suggests the exact opposite of what you've put above.

 

Nobody is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that there is a correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the link to warmer climates. What is in dispute is the degree of impact we're having on the climate especially given the other natural factors that are going on at the same time. Climate change is all relative depending on which starting point in time to use.

 

Phytoplankton is responsible only for a very small amount of global CO2 absorption. The ability of the oceans to dissolve CO2 directly is one of the largest CO2 sinks on the planet.

 

Just had a read and its apears to conferm what I said.

 

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

April 1, 2009: The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.

 

2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.

 

Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%).

 

It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

 

"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

 

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research

Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming

 

23 January 2012 - New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

 

In 2008 the sun set the following records:

 

A 50-year low in solar wind pressure:

A 12-year low in solar "irradiance"

A 55-year low in solar radio emissions:

Edited November 25, 2012 by maxmaximus

[erebus]

One should know that if it snows in winter it is not proof global warming is a lie. Its not how they do that. One measures the temperature daily, and takes seasonal averages over hundreds of years. If one wants to go back further then tree rings provide proof of temperatures which go back thousands of years. Many trees from various places around the world provide cross references to what is happening in each hemisphere as well as latitude.

 

So its the average temperature, not the daily one, which suggests it might be a bit of rib poking.

 

Satellite readings of sea temperatures can also provide average temperatures, and if yearly ones are looked at, and plotted on a chart, it shows there is a slow gradual and increasing rise. 1 or 2 degrees might not seem like much to most people, but it plays havoc with the weather systems.

 

So going outside and finding it is a cold day is not a scientific approach that global warming has stopped, although it can provide a way of discussing matters people have no idea about, are not interested in going into detail, which is surely the point. It replaces discussions like is the world flat, does the sun go round the world, is the moon made of cheese, and otehr such interesting speculations.

[Xt500]

The transition to the holocene happened 12000 years ago. The temperatures during the time since have been remarkably stable allowing civilisation and agriculture to develop.

During the past 1000 odd years the trend if anything had been cooling. This changed in the 1800s with the beginning of the current period of rapid warming.

 

A nice graph for you. I should warn you again this was constructed by real scientists who've devoted their lives to studying climate!

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/INTERNAL/MILLENNIUM/nhem-millennium.gif

 

These scientists you refer to,where do they get their funding from?

 

Anyone including Scientists can be leaned on.I suppose you didnt hear about the emails that were doing the rounds?

[bothyman]

These scientists you refer to,where do they get their funding from?

 

Anyone including Scientists can be leaned on.I suppose you didnt hear about the emails that were doing the rounds?

 

The one's that made that graph work at Penn State Uni. so presumably the usual mix of some govt grants, student fees and industry.

If you think you've got the skills and a research angle that could disprove AGW I'm sure you could find plenty of funding. Try the Koch Brothers for starters.

 

I presume you are referring to the East Anglia emails that were stolen then quote mined and cherry-picked. There have been 8 different investigations into them. None have found evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

 

Have you got anything to say about the science or just innuendo and conspiracy theory?

[Xt500]

The one's that made that graph work at Penn State Uni. so presumably the usual mix of some govt grants, student fees and industry.

If you think you've got the skills and a research angle that could disprove AGW I'm sure you could find plenty of funding. Try the Koch Brothers for starters.

 

I presume you are referring to the East Anglia emails that were stolen then quote mined and cherry-picked. There have been 8 different investigations into them. None have found evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

 

Have you got anything to say about the science or just innuendo and conspiracy theory?

 

Full of yourself arnt you?

 

So you agree gov grants of course totally unconditional,no pressure

 

Cherry picked ha ha.Was the information there or not?

 

Investigations are a bit like scientists.You can give them as much or as little funding as you want to.You can also employ who you want to to do them and of course like scientists can be leaned on.

Are you really nieve or been living on the moon? Er no you wouldnt be living there becuase in the shade its more than -250deg and out of the shade its near +300deg and the suits NASA provide have rubber joints unfortunatly.

[GrapeApe]

Full of yourself arnt you?

 

So you agree gov grants of course totally unconditional,no pressure

 

Cherry picked ha ha.Was the information there or not?

 

Investigations are a bit like scientists.You can give them as much or as little funding as you want to.You can also employ who you want to to do them and of course like scientists can be leaned on.

Are you really nieve or been living on the moon? Er no you wouldnt be living there becuase in the shade its more than -250deg and out of the shade its near +300deg and the suits NASA provide have rubber joints unfortunatly.

 

You cant lean on the huge majority of scientists who have proved climate change is real and a lot of it (maybe all) is man made.

[Xt500]

You cant lean on the huge majority of scientists who have proved climate change is real and a lot of it (maybe all) is man made.

 

'Proved'

 

Maybe proved to some easily led sheep yes.