250-year cooling period ahoy, yey!

[Metabo Oyaji 71]

What would be some reputable sources for long-term (million-year, say) estimated temperature trend plots?

(Web search gives lots on skeptic web sites, but not sure which are considered reliable.)

[NoFakie 45]

I would just like to say that oft-stated denial position that climate change scientists are corrupted by free money from governments and the UN is nonsense. The fossil fuel industry is a far far bigger payer.

 

 

I generally believe in scientific consensuses, so I believe in this one too, with the slight caveat that science is always right until its proven wrong.

 

 

A lot of historical data ignores that the world didn't have to support a population of seven billion at the time. We're not talking a few thousand people having to migrate to where some abundant but unused fresh water is anymore. There are 123 milion people living in coastal areas in the USA alone, with sea level rising at what sounds like an accelerating rate. Even if there is some climate trend that will render large areas of currently inhabitated land unhabitable, the last thing we should be doing is bringing it closer.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/coastal-cities-confront-g_b_3117809.html

[seemore 66]

Wow this thread is so informative

[seemore 66]

very similar to the above but not as funny

[snowdude 44]

GN said it all they base their records on a 30 year block 1970-2000 and then move it 10 years forward every ten years.

 

And as we all know 1970-2000 was indeed a warm period were as 1930-1970 was colder but 1900-1930 was warmer

 

What GN is too stupid to realise is that the earth isnt warmer now than what it used to be and the scientists are basing their results on a short 30 year period only with considering the eartj has been here for a few billiom years is not exactly an accurate assesment of temps or climate or weather rather it is totally meaningless.

 

The earth stopped cooling in about 2000 started cooling about 3 years ago so it will be at least 10 years before their will be enough years of cooling for record purposes.

 

If the scientists chose an earlier period of time for example tje medieval warm period then it would show the temps as higher than today even though technology did not exist at the time so humans could not be a factor in warming the earth.

 

But GN just believes in this silly 30 year block results all of which are taken on purpose during this warmer period as a basis for their results.

 

Thing is once these scientists tells everyone that it is warming and the gorvernments it is not possible for them to same oh sorry we f%@ked up please forgive us because it would be so shameful and degrading for them.

Same goes for the warmistd believers not easy for them to back down and say they were wrong eithet so thay just go on and on.

 

[Metabo Oyaji 71]

Well, snowdude, just because temperatures have gone up and down without human assistance in the past, is not proof that humans cannot cause temperature changes.

 

But that is not an argument I am competent to get into. I am just curious about graphs like this:

 

which cite what appear on the surface to be reputable sources, but which mostly seem to show up on web sites with certain apparent agendas, so I am wondering where to find a properly peer-reviewed version of such. Thought GN might be up on that.

 

If those spikes are right, why does the temperature rise so suddenly (as viewed on that scale -- really takes thousands of years) every now and then, but drop slowly after that (tens of thousands of years)? Is the mechanism understood?

[snowdude 44]

I dont think the mechanism is fully understood and probably never will.

 

Thing is with a lot of these graphs like the one above is they are produced by scientists whose agenda is keeping the warming lie alive.

The earth cycles between warm and cold cycles but it is highly unlikely that it is always going to warm faster than it cools everytime and also evenly.

Most likely the earth will warm quickly sometimes anf other times slower and the warming and cooling periods are likely to vary also.

 

Most of these so called peer reviewed graphs which I might add are reviewed by members of the same bunch and not by people not related to the field but with the knowledge are mostly favoring a warming trend.

 

Thing that really gets to me is that the scientists know that the earth cools and warms naturally and has done throughout the history of the earth without human influence yet they still say today is the hottest evet when quite clearly that is not the case.

The biggest inflience on earths climate is nature not humans.

 

The sun has a huge influence on earth.

When its solar output is high co2 falls and the earth warms when the suns solar output is lower co2 increases as the earth cools.

 

Obviously other factors together are involved but a big part is the sun.

 

[Besniwod 6]

Go Native, you have to remember that when you give snowdude information your are giving a toddler some toy blocks that he is trying to fit into some shaped holes. Unfortunately, he seems to only have one shaped hole to fit all of your blocks into and none of them fit. Rather than finding a new hole, he will always proudly keep on bashing at the hole until enough parts of the block have broken off for it to fit. Don't take his hole away from him, he loves mindlessly bashing things into it.

 

The earth stopped cooling in about 2000 started cooling about 3 years ago so it will be at least 10 years before their will be enough years of cooling for record purposes.

 

Snowdude, if there needs to be 10 years of cooling for 'record purposes' (i.e. to show a trend), how do you know that the Earth is on a cooling trend after only three years, which by your own admission is not enough for 'record purposes.'

 

scientists are basing their results on a short 30 year period only with considering the eartj has been here for a few billiom years is not exactly an accurate assesment of temps or climate or weather rather it is totally meaningless.

 

You are basing your results on an even shorter period: 3 years. Does this not make your results even more inaccurate and meaningless than the scientists you criticise. You seem very capable of being critical of things you disagree with. How about you apply the same degree of critical thinking to your own beliefs? You could take the first steps from being a tenacious toddler to a thinking adult.

[snowdude 44]

Go Native, you have to remember that when you give snowdude information your are giving a toddler some toy blocks that he is trying to fit into some shaped holes. Unfortunately, he seems to only have one shaped hole to fit all of your blocks into and none of them fit. Rather than finding a new hole, he will always proudly keep on bashing at the hole until enough parts of the block have broken off for it to fit. Don't take his hole away from him, he loves mindlessly bashing things into it.

 

The earth stopped cooling in about 2000 started cooling about 3 years ago so it will be at least 10 years before their will be enough years of cooling for record purposes.

 

Snowdude, if there needs to be 10 years of cooling for 'record purposes' (i.e. to show a trend), how do you know that the Earth is on a cooling trend after only three years, which by your own admission is not enough for 'record purposes.'

 

scientists are basing their results on a short 30 year period only with considering the eartj has been here for a few billiom years is not exactly an accurate assesment of temps or climate or weather rather it is totally meaningless.

 

You are basing your results on an even shorter period: 3 years. Does this not make your results even more inaccurate and meaningless than the scientists you criticise. You seem very capable of being critical of things you disagree with. How about you apply the same degree of critical thinking to your own beliefs? You could take the first steps from being a tenacious toddler to a thinking adult.

 

I havent based my results on 3 years I have based mine on hundreds of thousands of years of how the earth has cycled between warmer and cooler to come to my conclusions.

 

The 3 years that I mention is not what I based my results on as it would of course show nothing.

What I stated is that the past 3 years in many parts of the globe but not everywhere of course have been colder which backs at my point that the earth is now in a state of cooling unless I see any drastic changes in the oother direction.

 

And yes I will keep on about this debate and no GN's in this world will change my mind until I see some real undisputed independently reviewed data the majority agree on because I aint seeing that now.

A few pissy graphs and figures that come from the same source all the time isnt going to convince one little bit especially when what I read and see is very different to the reality.

 

GN chose the wrong person to feed his global warming speil to because I dont back down.

 

Maybe you need to learn to read and understand English properly before you comment in future as you obviously dod not understand what I said.

 

 

[Besniwod 6]

Oh dear, it looks like I gave him another toy block.

 

I havent based my results on 3 years I have based mine on hundreds of thousands of years of how the earth has cycled between warmer and cooler to come to my conclusions.

 

The 3 years that I mention is not what I based my results on as it would of course show nothing.

What I stated is that the past 3 years in many parts of the globe but not everywhere of course have been colder which backs at my point that the earth is now in a state of cooling unless I see any drastic changes in the oother direction.

 

Hmm. You may base the fact that the climate cycles on thousands of years of data but you are claiming something separate to that. You are stating that the climate is currently cooling. You contradict yourself by first saying that 3 years of data 'would of course show nothing' and then go on to say that some parts of the Earth being colder in the 'past three years' backs up your 'point that the earth is in a state of cooling.' How can data from the past three years both mean nothing and back up your argument?

 

Maybe you need to learn to read and understand English properly before you comment in future as you obviously dod not understand what I said.

 

I do find it rather amusing that you are criticising my understanding of English considering your simian approach to its use. But then again, I 'dod' understand no English so what do I know.

[Go Native 70]

GN said it all they base their records on a 30 year block 1970-2000 and then move it 10 years forward every ten years.

 

And as we all know 1970-2000 was indeed a warm period were as 1930-1970 was colder but 1900-1930 was warmer

 

What GN is too stupid to realise is that the earth isnt warmer now than what it used to be and the scientists are basing their results on a short 30 year period only with considering the eartj has been here for a few billiom years is not exactly an accurate assesment of temps or climate or weather rather it is totally meaningless.

 

The earth stopped cooling in about 2000 started cooling about 3 years ago so it will be at least 10 years before their will be enough years of cooling for record purposes.

 

If the scientists chose an earlier period of time for example tje medieval warm period then it would show the temps as higher than today even though technology did not exist at the time so humans could not be a factor in warming the earth.

 

But GN just believes in this silly 30 year block results all of which are taken on purpose during this warmer period as a basis for their results.

 

Thing is once these scientists tells everyone that it is warming and the gorvernments it is not possible for them to same oh sorry we f%@ked up please forgive us because it would be so shameful and degrading for them.

Same goes for the warmistd believers not easy for them to back down and say they were wrong eithet so thay just go on and on.

'

Again you completely misunderstand the science snowdude. Completely and untterly. You continually do it because you know nothing of it and don't actually want to learn anything about it. The 30 year base periods used are purely to work out anomalies. They are not used for working out long term trends. What you fail to understand is that by including more recent warm temperatures from more recent decades if we still continue to get positive anomalies then it tells us that it is still warming. If your cooling proposition was correct then we'd start to see negative anomalies predominate each month. If temperature change was fairly neutral we'd see a combination of positive and negative anomalies. But as pointed out in my post above there hasn't been a negative anomaly for any month recorded since Feb 1985. Not one. Even if we were to get one it would hardly be indicative of a cooling trend. We'd need years (decades) of predominantly cooler anomalies, just like we've seen with warmer anomalies, to say we're seeing a significant cooling trend. As I said previously we'd have to cool quite a lot to even get back anywhere near the 20th century average let alone start to plunge us into another major glacial period.

 

Your claim that 1900-1930 was warmer is false. It was certainly not warmer than say 1981-2010. So if they were to use 1900-1930 for a base temperature than the positive anomalies we'd be seeing today would be far, far greater. Again though the anomalies for each month by themselves mean nothing in terms of trends. The fact though that we haven't had a negative monthly anomaly for not far off 30 years is very telling. And on an annual basis we haven't have a below average anomaly since 1976.

 

The sun has a huge influence on earth.

When its solar output is high co2 falls and the earth warms when the suns solar output is lower co2 increases as the earth cools.

 

It is true that the sun is a huge influence on earths climate. Over the history of the earth there have been many factors that affect temperature and Metabo I'll answer some of your question in this. The output from the sun varies over time as does the earths orbit around the sun as does the axial tilt of the earth. There are also things like massive meteorite hits, super volcanoes, the position of the continents on the globe and changes in the composition of the atmosphere as life developed on the planet and even changes in the roatation speed of the earth. The main factors though, at least within the last say half million years, are variations in output from the sun, variations in the orbit (changes to how close and far from the sun the earth gets) and variations in the axial tilt. All vary in cycles and at times the cycles all combine to either have a significant warming or cooling forcing on the atmospehre.

 

What is not true is your assertion that CO2 falls when solar output is high and increases when it is low. The opposite is true. And you've shown this in evidence you've presented previously yourself. It explains why in previous warm events temperature rises occur slightly before rises in CO2. The rises in temperature occur because of changes in solar outpid, orbit and tilt as explained above. As the earth warms CO2 increases for a whole range of reasons. The main reason is that as temperatures rise the world's oceans release CO2 which then amplifies the warming and so even more CO2 is released and as we're seeing currently things like permafrost start thawing and releasing vast amounts of methane as well which increase warming which releases more CO2 which increases warming. Which partly explains Metabo why temps increase so quick because of the feedbacks of warming only increase the warming. So warming can runaway quite rapidly. Eventually the congruence of natural factors of the solar output, orbit and axial tilt dissipate and there is a net negative forcing on temperatures. As the oceans start to cool again they can absord more CO2 and cooling takes hold. One thing we know for certain is that CO2 and temperature are linked. During times of higher temps there is higher concentrations of CO2 and conversely low temps, lower CO2.

 

 

So the above explains what happens naturally. So what happens when you dig up trillions of tonnes of fossil fuels and burn them releasing the carbon locked up in them to react with the oxygen in the atmosphere to form CO2? Well you see a rapid increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. And there's no doubt that's what we've seen. And this time the CO2 started rising ahead of rises in temperatures due to human influence. It wasn't just burning fossil fuels, it was also precipitated by clearing of forests and replacing them with crops. Contrary to snowdudes assertions about big global conspiracies CO2 was recognised as a significant 'greenhouse' gas way back in the mid 19th century. I don't really think even he could claim that the conspiracy extends back that far? We can see in the graph above that CO2 and temperature are intrinsically linked with each other. So this time around due to human influence CO2 has risen rapidly. What do you think is going to happen to temperatures? Nothing? Go down? Or do what is obvious to anyone with a brain? They will increase and they have done so. It is generally accepted that the positive forcing of CO2 on temperature didn't become the dominant forcing until about mid last century. Prior to that it's exactly as snowdude asserts that the sun and the things I've mentioned like orbit which casued many of the main cycles in temperature. We are now in a period where even though solar output has decreased slightly in recent decades we're still seeing increasing temps due to positive forcing created by the increased CO2.

 

Ultimately I'm not spending all this time writing these posts to argue with snowdude because there's no real point arguing science with someone who knows nothing about it. It's just futile. It's like trying to argue against people who believe that the world is 6000 years old. No matter what scientific evidence you present they aren't actually interested in the science, they are only interested in finding things that confirm their ideology. I do this though because I know there are some people on here who do actually have an interest in the science and learning something about it.

[Metabo Oyaji 71]

Thanks GN, makes sense. Found the following video from NOAA on CO2:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7tfz3k_9A&feature=player_embedded

 

Skip to 2:00 for the long-term trend. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now about 33% higher than the highest they were at any time in the 800,000 years leading up to the 19th century.

Looks like we are certainly conducting a grand experiment.

 

So I guess the goal is to make a model that can reproduce the pre-human-civilization data, to make sure the other factors are understood, and then toss in the extra CO2 and see what that predicts?

[Chriselle 158]

You said it Spanky.....

 

[snowdude 44]

Ok Go Native, let us for a moment imagine that you are correct and that I am wrong!!

 

In which case I have a few simple questions that I would like you to answer for me as you know everything about science and I don't, so these should be a piece of cake to answer for you!!!!

 

1. During the Medieval warm period between roughly AD950-1250 the earth at that time was warmer than it currently is. It is well documented by many people throughout history, which I am sure you are aware of.

So that is a good thousand years ago would you not agree?

 

125,000 years ago was also warmer than today Would you also agree that humans certainly had no influence on the earths temperatures during these periods?

 

There are of course many other periods, not that I am going to list them here, I am sure you can find them.

 

And also at those above periods would you not agree about the following :

 

THERE WERE

 

No vehicles of any sort

No factories pumping out any pollution into the environment

No electricity

No coal fires

No power stations

No polluting chemicals being used

No fossil fuels being burned all over the place

 

No technology at all

 

None of the above had been invented or discovered at this time or even close to.

 

So my question to you is what caused this warming period as humans could not have been the factor?

 

Answer = .........................

 

 

2. During the following period 1450-1850 the earth was cooler than now and the following were still not around

 

Companies pumping out polution

Motor vehices

Technology, very very basic things were now around.

No electricity

No power stations

No polluting chemicals being used

No fossil fuels being burned all over the place

 

So what caused this cooling during this period as I am sure it was still to early for humans to have any influence on the planet?

 

Answer = ..............?

 

3. Next question

 

Let us say again that you are correct that humans are affecting the environment by warming the climate..... then could you give me an exact percentage (%) that humans are influencing the warming of the planet including a link or documentation that shows this information and that is known and proven to be 100% correct and accurate?

 

Answer = ................?.

 

4. Last question

 

Can you give me an exact figure as to how much Co2 was in the atmosphere lets say 500,000 years ago, again a link or documentation that shows this information and that is known and proven to be 100% correct and accurate?

 

Answer..............

 

 

I look forward to your answers.

[pie-eater 207]

[Besniwod 6]

Hey snowdude, how about you practice what you preach and try to read and understand GN's post. Your first two questions were already answered in his post:

 

It is true that the sun is a huge influence on earths climate. Over the history of the earth there have been many factors that affect temperature and Metabo I'll answer some of your question in this. The output from the sun varies over time as does the earths orbit around the sun as does the axial tilt of the earth. There are also things like massive meteorite hits, super volcanoes, the position of the continents on the globe and changes in the composition of the atmosphere as life developed on the planet and even changes in the roatation speed of the earth. The main factors though, at least within the last say half million years, are variations in output from the sun, variations in the orbit (changes to how close and far from the sun the earth gets) and variations in the axial tilt. All vary in cycles and at times the cycles all combine to either have a significant warming or cooling forcing on the atmospehre.

 

Also, I am waiting for a response to my question. How can data from the last three years both ‘show nothing’ and support your claim that the Earth is in a state of cooling? Or should we take your silence on the matter as an admission that the last three years do not in fact show a cooling trend?

[Go Native 70]

I honestly couldn't really be bothered searching the science for you snowdude. You're not interested in the science. Long ago you decided all the science was just one big fraud due to some massive conspiracy by all the world's climate scientists to make a whole lot of money or something. Plus you don't even appear to understand the most basic concepts with the science so attempting to debate it with you really is quite futile. You don't have enough knowledge about the subject for there to be a debate. It's not about science for you and you're not interesting in learning about it. Attempting to debate this issue with you is no different to attempting to use science against those that believe the earth was created by a god 6000 years ago. Nothing they believe in is based on any credible science. Nothing you believe in is based on any credible science. Nothing they believe is based on reason or logic and nothing you believe is based on reason or logic. So there's no point in attempting to have a reasoned and logical debate with you regarding the science. It's all an ideological debate for you, not a scientific one as you completely dismiss and deny the science.

 

If others are interested in more information I'll be happy to supply it. I have no interest in debating with you a subject that you know nothing about snowdude. I will continue though to present a scientific argument against any of the completely unsubstantiated and ridiculous claims you make about climate change.

[snowdude 44]

I honestly couldn't really be bothered searching the science for you snowdude. You're not interested in the science. Long ago you decided all the science was just one big fraud due to some massive conspiracy by all the world's climate scientists to make a whole lot of money or something. Plus you don't even appear to understand the most basic concepts with the science so attempting to debate it with you really is quite futile. You don't have enough knowledge about the subject for there to be a debate. It's not about science for you and you're not interesting in learning about it. Attempting to debate this issue with you is no different to attempting to use science against those that believe the earth was created by a god 6000 years ago. Nothing they believe in is based on any credible science. Nothing you believe in is based on any credible science. Nothing they believe is based on reason or logic and nothing you believe is based on reason or logic. So there's no point in attempting to have a reasoned and logical debate with you regarding the science. It's all an ideological debate for you, not a scientific one as you completely dismiss and deny the science.

 

If others are interested in more information I'll be happy to supply it. I have no interest in debating with you a subject that you know nothing about snowdude. I will continue though to present a scientific argument against any of the completely unsubstantiated and ridiculous claims you make about climate change.

 

 

Strange as you had already answered the first two questions by telling me and everyone that The output from the sun varies over time as does the earths orbit around the sun as does the axial tilt of the earth. There are also things like massive meteorite hits, super volcanoes, the position of the continents on the globe and changes in the composition of the atmosphere as life developed on the planet and even changes in the roatation speed of the earth. The main factors though, at least within the last say half million years, are variations in output from the sun, variations in the orbit (changes to how close and far from the sun the earth gets) and variations in the axial tilt. All vary in cycles and at times the cycles all combine to either have a significant warming or cooling forcing on the atmospehre.

 

SO YOU KNOW what causes the change in the climate, (natural forces) (and in particular you mention the main factors are the variation in the output of the sun in say the last half million years) (JUST AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG) yet you still tell everyone that I am talking crap and that man made co2 is to blame for helping to warm the earth, but yet you, like other scientists on this planet can not answer or give a 100% accurate answer to my questions 3 and 4.

 

It is not because you can't be bothered its because you can't and in fact no one can answer those questions that is why I asked them.

 

Because no one has any real way to know exact amounts of co2 that are natural and amounts that maybe from other areas such as burning fuels, pollution, or whatever.

And know way can anyone know how much is absorbed by the earth, the oceans or how much is produced by volcanoes, and how does that compare exactly with past times.

And no one can possibly know with out a shadow of a doubt what the actual co2 levels were say 500,000 years ago or 50,000 years ago, they can only guess or assume from samples they have taken.

So it is of course 100 percent impossible for scientists or anyone to say humans are causing global warming when they don't have any 100% accurate BASE figures to go by, everything is guess work and assumptions.

 

And as the dinosaurs never had thermometers to let them know what the exact temperatures were millions of years ago, it is not really possible to know if the earth is hotter or cooler today, we can only take an educated guess, but it is not gospel!!!!

We know that temperatures have been both warmer and colder in the past and have cycled many times between the two states, but exactly how many degrees is anyones guess. So it is also not possible to know if today is truly warmer than anytime in the past, it is only a guess!

 

Actually if anyone on this planet can give real figures that are 100 % accurate that are proven to be correct to my questions 3 and 4 then all diseases will be cured, cars will become obsolete over night and we will all be able to live to 200 years old, as our brains are capable of living 200+ years, just that our bodies wear up way before then.

 

Just to make clear I don't have a problem with the earth warming if in fact it is, and I don't have a problem with real science, for example studying medicine, things that are here at the moment that people, can see, touch, and investigate and come up with real solutions that is so so very good.

 

What I do have a bloody problem with is so called scientists telling bare faced lies to people and the governments steeling peoples hard earned money to fund something that is all guess work and maybe's and trying to force green tax on to people as a means to scam more money out of people to satisfy their agendas!

 

As much as I know you hate the (ice age now site), you maybe would like to take a look at that, and see how many people are reporting colder than average climates around them, snowy than usual climates around them, wetter than average climates around them,these are reports from real everyday people living all over the globe, they are not scientists, they are meteorologists just everyday people reporting on cold events all over the globe.

 

These lists of events has nothing to do with how clever or how much knowledge the author of the blog is, it is just a blog listing extreme weather events around the globe as they happens in peoples back yards.

 

It is interesting to see how many places are around the world are colder than they should be, you will see it is hardly isolated rather very wide spread.

 

Whether the climate continues to cool or warm up again or no matter what it does over the next however many years, one thing I know whether us humans are on this planet or not the climate will change!!!!! That is a fact!!!!!

 

Anyway I think I have used up too much cyber space trying to educate you in the fact that to blame humans for global warming is just ludicrous!

 

I have given you the chance to show me real evidence, of which you have not been able to, and now it is time for us to go our separate ways, you your warming activist route, mine the reality route!

 

End of!!!!

[Go Native 70]

What I said I couldn't be bothered doing snowdude was searching out science for you as you requested in your questions above. The stuff you've bolded there is just general knowledge I know, I didn't have to search out any specific papers for that.

Once again though due to your complete lack of knowledge on the subject your assertion that there is no way to know the exact amounts of CO2 that are natural or from burning fossil fuels is completely false. The carbon from fossil fuels has different isotopes to the carbon found more generally in the environment. So we do know that much of the increase in CO2 over the last couple of hundred years is directly attributable to the burning of fossil fuels because of the isotopes of carbon that are increasing in the atmosphere. Carbon that's been locked away inderground for 10's or 100's of millions of years has different isotopes to the carbon that's going around in the normal natural carbon cycle.

 

And we can know with reasonable amount of accuracy what CO2 levels were 500,000 to 50,000 years ago because of the gases held in air bubbles in the ice in Antarctica. They have been drilling ice cores at Vostok station for decades now and they've almost gone down through 4km's of ice. That goes back a long way into the history of the earth. The data isn't guesswork as you claim. It's careful scientific analysis. If your requirement is that they must have 100% accuracy then of course, as I'm sure you realise, that isn't possible. But of course it also isn't necessary. We can gain more than enough information with enough accuracy to draw conclusions from. For instance when say looking at the increased incidence of cancer in smokers. Do you think the studies include every single smoker on the planet and compare to every single non smoker on the planet? No, of course not. So any results are by their very nature not 100% accurate. Does that mean we can't determine any meaningful conclusions from such studies? No. Of course we can determine meaningful conclusions and we do all the time from data that is not 100% accurate.

 

Let's be clear that my description of the natural forcings at play that affect climate (which is not a complete list of forcings) in no way whatsoever endorses things you've said previously. Yes you are right that the sun is a very important natural forcing on climate but primary school students know that and no one argues about that. And certainly climate scientists have always known that. And they know a hell of a lot more about it than you ever will. What you completely fail to take into account are any other forcings on climate like the composition of our atmosphere. I left out a few other forcings and an interesting one is one you keep mentioning, pollution. We actually know that many of the Clean Air acts that have been put into place around the world to reduce pollution have actually contributed to accelerated warming because many of the pollutants, especially sulphur based ones, would form aerosols in the atmosphere which reflected a reasonable amount of the incoming solar radiation back into space. Pollution actually helped to suppress the warming due to increased CO2 for a fair portion of the 20th century. Of course you've been throwing in pollution as another thing that supposedly you believed caused warming or you thought scientists claim caused warming. Again showing your complete lack of knowledge and ignorance of what are just basics of the science.

 

Your questions 3 and 4 are answered in some scientific papers (look them up yourself). I have read papers answering such questions previously but I don't recall any figures accurately enough to write them here off the top of my head. As I say I'm not going to search for such papers for you. It's not like you'll really read them anyway. And of course your ridiculous stipulation that it must be 100% accurate for us to be able to draw any sort of meaningful conclusions means you'll only dismiss anything you do read. Which of course is utter stupidity but typical of someone so illiterate in science. You want absolutes with no doubt? Become a fundamentalist christian or something.

 

One of your main problems snowdude as I continue to point out is that you know nothing of the science. So when you claim something like 'scientists telling bare faced lies to people' I just shake my head. Because you don't even know what scientists are saying. You only access your so called 'science' through the popular media or through denialist websites and blogs. You don't actually know what scientists are saying or publishing. So don't claim they are lying.

 

It's a funny old world we live in when people like you who have never studied a day of science in your entire miserable life dismiss the scientific consensus on climate change. I just don't understand it. You seem part of a movement within conservative circles that have increasingly become more and more antagonistic towards not only science but academics and intellectuals as a whole. A large portion of it of course comes out of the US and it all seems tied up with religious and far right ideology. To me it represents the ultimate in dumbing down of our society when people like you think they've become some sort of expert on a subject because they've spend a small amount of time reading some blog on the internet. As though that is a reasonable substitute for years and decades of study and research. People like you form incredibly strong opinions based on complete ignorance. It's kind of scary really.

[Chriselle 158]

 

 

This must be on every page of this thread.....Page 3 secured.

[grungy-gonads 54]

snowdude, you do realise that it's your turn now?

 

[Alexander L 80]

[snowdude 44]

snowdude, you do realise that it's your turn now?

 

 

I cant be bothered talking to GN anymore .

He thinks he knows everything there is aboit climate and weather.

Trying to discuss anything with him is like talking to a 3 yeat old.

 

Even when half the earth is buried in snow he will still insist the earth is warmer or that warm causes cold which is the latest BS a lot of the warmists are saying .

 

So I really cant be hassled to waste my time anymore I have more important things to do.

 

[Ajax 0]

Snodude you don't have to be too worried about any action on climate change happening in the US any time soon.

 

http://mobile.rawstory.com/therawstory/#!/entry/belief-in-biblical-endtimes-stifling-climate-change-action-in-us,51817ff4da27f5d9d0b879ba

[Besniwod 6]

I cant be bothered talking to GN anymore .

He thinks he knows everything there is aboit climate and weather.

Trying to discuss anything with him is like talking to a 3 yeat old.

 

Even when half the earth is buried in snow he will still insist the earth is warmer or that warm causes cold which is the latest BS a lot of the warmists are saying .

 

So I really cant be hassled to waste my time anymore I have more important things to do.

 

Or you know that you can't offer a convincing evidence based counterargument so you are not going to even try. Basically, GN shot down your argument and you can't pick up the pieces. If you disagree, prove us wrong and write a rebuttal addressing the points in GN's post.

 

Also, you haven't replied to my post at the top of the page. So everyone can take that as an admission that there is no cooling trend.

 

It's okay everyone, snowdude is no longer claiming that the Earth's climate is cooling. Essentially, snowdudes argument makes two claims. First, the climate has cycled naturally in the past and the natural processes that caused this will continue to affect climate change. I think we can all agree with him on that point. Second, he was saying that the climate is currently cooling but then admitted he was basing this on data from the last three years and that this actually 'shows nothing.'

 

Now his data may be questionable and his conclusions dubious but even if we put that aside and just follow his reasoning, it shows that there is no evidence of a cooling trend. Data that can ‘show nothing’ can, you guessed it, show nothing.

 

Hint: If you are shooting yourself in the foot with your own argument, I would hesitate calling others 3 ‘yeat’ olds. Instead, you should change your username to noosedude to describe your incredible ability to tie nooses with your argument and then hang yourself with them (figuratively of course, please don't hang yourself).