Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[truman]

There are many differing cycles, and climate scientists have them in their computer models.

 

Which are infallible...

[Lockjaw]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/climate_change

 

I dont like posting information from non-science sites, but its a very good graph that will educate many sceptics.

 

Hmm, nice couple of posts in the comments section:

 

"

 

 

@Djon

I seem to remember someone like you back in 1974 running around telling me that the world was on a one way train to an ice age and that were were 1/6 of the way towards an ice age already and that we'd see major food shortages due to cold weather in th 1980s (oh yeah, it was in Newsweek and it covered a bunch of pages and filled the cover of that respectable publication).

I also vague remember someone citing in the professional literature that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt in 25 years (obliterating half the world's population in the process). When challenged on that fact the head of the publishing organization called the dissenters practitioners of "voodoo science."

Point is, you can't see the future.

Why don't you try to "convince" me. since that apparently is your stated goal*.

*Note - bashing me and berating me is not a sound approach to "convincing" and neither is pushing the red button that splatters my entrails and the entrails of my children who might disagree or who might not have an opinion.

CONVINCE ME! Here I stand before you. Use convincing rhetoric and science to convince me. I've been convinced of other things like:

-einstein has been able to convince me to special relativity

-I'm convinced that immunizations are a godsend to humanity

-I am a believer in a biomolecular approach to medicine design

-I'm almost certain we're not alone in the universe (but doubt we'll ever see an alien)

-I'm convinced liberal democracy is the best form of government on earth.

-I'm convinced energy is key to human development

-I'm convinced that fossil fuels are finite

-I'm convinced we need to plan for an energy transition

-I'm convinced any transition will be very difficult (understanding the sheer scale of our energy needs)

-I'm NOT convinced that humans can affect the long-term climate of the planet or that we can (or should) attempt to alter the climate of the planet.

I have been convinced to all of this so why not climate change. I've studied it extensively both the science and the politics.

CONVINCE ME.

 

@Djon

As a disclaimer to my honesty and willingness to being convinced I will offer this:

- I am not a lobbyist

- I do not represent any fossil fuel special interst

- I do not represent any renewable fuel special interest

- I do not represent any kind of environmental lobby or pressure group

- I don't get paid to post

- I do care about my planet, I plant trees and am an avid gardener

- I have travled the world and seen many great and sad things.

I am a US citizen. The only interest I have is in my taxes (a fair interest) that many of us have. I want to keep my taxes low. But I'm reasonable and favor tough anti-smog pollution laws and waterway cleanliness environmental laws....I'm willing to sacrifice for a "worthy" cause.

I'm not willing to give money to dictators or squander it on bureaucrats.

So -- with that, convince me of climate change and that the UN led path is the correct path. I've read mostly everything on the topic btw. Good luck.

 

 

 

 

"

[El Cid]

 

@Djon

I seem to remember someone like you back in 1974 running around telling me that the world was on a one way train to an ice age and that were were 1/6 of the way towards an ice age already and that we'd see major food shortages due to cold weather in th 1980s

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_%28NASA%29.svg

 

The change in temperatures is there for all to see; there was a temporary decline from the 1940s to the 1980s, our present lack of linear temperature rises is only around 10 to 15 years.

[Lockjaw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_%28NASA%29.svg

 

The change in temperatures is there for all to see

 

Aye. I've seen that. Is there any controversy, at all, around the data collection?

 

 

 

there was a temporary decline from the 1940s to the 1980s, our present lack of linear temperature rises is only around 10 to 15 years.

 

That seems a strange thing to point out. Isn't every single part of it temporary?

 

ETA: I noticed you didn't reply to the question I asked you, in #3032, re the exact relationship between CO2 levels & temperature. You interrupted on Smithy's behalf so care share your thoughts?

Edited March 22, 2013 by Lockjaw

[Tim Grindley]

-I'm convinced that fossil fuels are finite

Yeah, obviously, but the current known world reserves at present prices of oil is 64 years.

 

We have never know of so much oil. OK, it's all Canadian oil shales and Venezwailian tar or difficult to get to but that's just because we have had all the easy to get stuff.

 

I don't expect to see us using oil in 50 years time given how much work is being done to find alternatives. Only one of them has to work and we will replace the fossil fuel industry.

[truman]

Yeah, obviously, but the current known world reserves at present prices of oil is 64 years.

 

We have never know of so much oil. OK, it's all Canadian oil shales and Venezwailian tar or difficult to get to but that's just because we have had all the easy to get stuff.

 

I don't expect to see us using oil in 50 years time given how much work is being done to find alternatives. Only one of them has to work and we will replace the fossil fuel industry.

 

Do a Google for "Abiotic Oil"...

[El Cid]

Is there any controversy, at all, around the data collection?

 

 

Yes, but no one has an alternative record of stable or declining temperatures. But the odd issue always makes a good newspaper headline, and sticks in the heads of some.

 

 

That seems a strange thing to point out. Isn't every single part of it temporary?

 

There is always a reason for rising or declining temperatures; we know most of them, but can control very few.

[maxmaximus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

 

If the progress of science had been different we might have been claiming responsibility for having caused global cooling, a full 70 year period of cooling.

 

We were already pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at that point, not as fast as today, but we've been burning things for several thousand years, there are now admittedly 10 times as many of us... But even so, it just goes to show how easy it can be to draw the wrong conclusion.

 

 

We talked about this yesterday, we are entering another solar Solar minimum, but this time the climate won’t cool down, it just won’t warm up as fast as first predicted.

 

 

Which increases the albido of the planet and reduces the amount of heat that is retained.

Feedback mechanism, natch.

 

No because sea ice is reducing faster in the Northern hemisphere.

 

It's not new, the fact that a large portion of the data comes from stations close to urban heat islands has been known for some time.

Some researchers have even deliberately excluded data what didn't agree (ie surface stations not within urban heat islands), because that data was clearly erroneous didn't support the conclusion they wanted to reach.

 

Posted links about this yesterday, proxies and satellite data confirm AGW

 

New Study Shows Independent Evidence Of Global Warming

 

Independent Evidence Confirms Global Warming in Instrument Record

[truman]

Yes, but no one has an alternative record of stable or declining temperatures. .

 

How far back do you want to go...?

[El Cid]

How far back do you want to go...?

 

And your point is ??