[Nimby]

What is says on the tin.

A true: "We dun it!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

Has anyone noticed until now that GW are the initials of "Burning" Bush?

You couldn't make it up!

The Devil truly moves in mysterious ways.

[AgentCool]

Why are they always looking for one all-encompassing explanation for temperature variation? Is it not possible, if not probable, that there are countless factors interacting unpredictably with each other with even more unpredictable outcomes? I wouldn't even remotely rule out the possibility that some of these contributing factors have yet to be discovered.

If you can't plot the suspect cause against the result, it's not the cause.

So if you can plot the cause against the result it must be the cause.

Therefore I believe the Internet is the cause of GW as I'm sure you could plot it's increasing usage against rising temperatures.

QED

[Corey USA]

Keep trying to say you upset the gas ratio and your going to have havoc. heck even Njp been saying something similar as well. to what the article was saying.

[Greg]

I always blamed the Daily Express myself, or maybe even The Mirror.

[njp]

Originally Posted by markwpage

Why are they always looking for one all-encompassing explanation for temperature variation?

Who are "they"? That criticism should be levelled at the denialist faction, who have sought to do exactly that with solar variability. This is what the faked graphs in Durkin's documentary were all about.

The research referenced here simply reinforces the position that solar variability cannot account for recent warning, regardless of any effect it may have had on climate in the past. No credible climate scientist thinks that climate is controlled by a single factor. Understanding the interactions between all the factors is precisely what climate science seeks to do, and is what has led to our current understanding of the vital role played by carbon dioxide.

Originally Posted by markwpage

Why are they always looking for one all-encompassing explanation for temperature variation?

"They" being those who claim that solar variations alone explain all the temperature variations?

Is it not possible, if not probable, that there are countless factors interacting unpredictably with each other with even more unpredictable outcomes? I wouldn't even remotely rule out the possibility that some of these contributing factors have yet to be discovered.

There are many factors that climate scientists take into account. The way they interact is very complex, although not completely unpredictable (we have the laws of physics and thermodynamics for a start). That is why scientists use models to simulate the climate (and the weather, but that's even harder).

I personally think the sun is the one and only reason for any increase in the mercury that may happen in he future.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Manhattan Mike

I personally think the sun is the one and only reason for any increase in the mercury that may happen in he future.

Yes, we already know that you are in total denial of all the scientific evidence that there is or that there could ever be, so why bother telling us again?

Fortunately not all Americans are like you.

[Wellington Tim]

Originally Posted by Manhattan Mike

I personally think the sun is the one and only reason for any increase in the mercury that may happen in he future.

Why do you think that, Mike, when all the data points to the fact that solar activity has declined over the past decade, yet global average temperatures have increased.

[Nimby]

Can't we just blame Bill Gates and be done with it?

Windows requires ever more power to run each new version.

The temperature curve exactly matches the electricity consumption of the billions of new computers.

(that world business feels it is necessary to buy just to upgrade to the next version of windows)

No computer modelling required:

"Burning" Bush^Oil$ + Bill Gates^G$ = GW.

QED.

Originally Posted by njp

Yes, we already know that you are in total denial of all the scientific evidence that there is or that there could ever be, so why bother telling us again?

I could ask the same of you njp, we know your views so why do you keep telling us.

Originally Posted by njp

Fortunately not all Americans are like you.

I have never said all Americans, just the majority are not interested, and its the majority that counts. A lot will depend on what states you live in.

Originally Posted by Wellington Tim

Why do you think that, Mike, when all the data points to the fact that solar activity has declined over the past decade, yet global average temperatures have increased.

I am not so sure that is true, I have read articles even in newspapers here in the UK that solar activity will be reaching its height soon and then declining.
But of course people who want you to believe in global warming wont say that or will just tuck it away under the rug.

[Wellington Tim]

Originally Posted by Manhattan Mike

I am not so sure that is true, I have read articles even in newspapers here in the UK that solar activity will be reaching its height soon and then declining.
But of course people who want you to believe in global warming wont say that or will just tuck it away under the rug.

Yet I have read other publications, and heard a scientist say on the BBC yesterday, that it has declined. Who is right? You will believe what you read, and I will believe what I read. You will believe the sun is the cause and do nothing to change your lifestyle, while I will believe man is a cause and will continue to make changes to my lifestyle.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Manhattan Mike

I am not so sure that is true, I have read articles even in newspapers here in the UK that solar activity will be reaching its height soon and then declining.

That can't be right, because the current cycle (cycle 23) isn't even at solar minimum yet. That should happen early next year.

After that, cycle 24 will reach Solar Max sometime between 2010 and 2012, and activity will then decline until it starts to rise again in cycle 25. You are confusing the normal (and variable) solar periodicity with long term trends in solar output. Given your total distain for science, I'm surprised you believe any of it!

But of course people who want you to believe in global warming wont say that or will just tuck it away under the rug.

No, what will happen is that actual scientists will continue to make actual measurements, and those will be added to the vast body of knowledge on the subject. Meanwhile, people who know nothing about science will continue to misuse any scrap of data they can find, in pursuit of their pseudo-scientific agenda.

[Wellington Tim]

The problem is, newspapers cannot report anything which is the least bit "complicated" without having to simplify it, thereby changing the facts. I have had experience of newspaper reporters. The problem is, no newspaper reporter is a climatologist and are not qualified to report on climate change.

The last time I had to explain something to a newspaper reporter, it was clear that she had no understanding of what I was telling her, and what was printed was factually incorrect because she had filled in the gaps with make-believe. Fortunately, it was a theatre related report and in the theatre ANY publicity is GOOD publicity.

My point is; in order to understand climate change, one must read scientific publications, not "The Sun" or TV programmes such as the "Global Warming Swindle" or whatever it was called, because that was made by a bloke who is TV's equivalent of a "Sun" journalist who had previously made documentaries to suggest that silicon implants and smoking are good for you!

[AgentCool]

For those interested, here's a very recent article by Joseph D'Aleo, Former Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and current Executive Director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=544

[njp]

Originally Posted by markwpage

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=544

He reminds me of the people who spent their lives counting the incidence of various words in the bible:

Despite the 90 percent certainty that man is behind recent global warming trends, the word “uncertainty” appears 494 times in the recent “Summary for Policymakers,” produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

[Edit: He can't even get that right. I've just checked, and the word "uncertainty" appears 15 times, not 494. He's wrong by a factor of 33. I think we begin to see why he can't get the science right either!]

And then he just goes on to insist that the Sun is responsible for current climate change, despite all the evidence that it isn't, and cites a whole list of discredited papers in support of his argument. His list is like a "Who's Who?" of climate change deniers: Jaworowski, Beck, Soon, Shaviv... They're all there!

[AgentCool]

One of his fellow 'deniers', David Archibald, has put his cards firmly on the table and produced the graph below. If he's wrong, he's wrong and if he's right, he's right. We'll soon find out.

[njp]

Originally Posted by markwpage

One of his fellow 'deniers', David Archibald, has put his cards firmly on the table and produced the graph below. If he's wrong, he's wrong and if he's right, he's right. We'll soon find out.

He's already wrong, since it wasn't warmer in the 1930's to 1950's.

Originally Posted by markwpage

One of his fellow 'deniers', David Archibald, has put his cards firmly on the table and produced the graph below. If he's wrong, he's wrong and if he's right, he's right. We'll soon find out.

Do you have a link for this? It doesn't say whether it refers to global, N hemispheric, N American, or US-only temps.

[AgentCool]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

Do you have a link for this? It doesn't say whether it refers to global, N hemispheric, N American, or US-only temps.

http://www.nzclimatescience.org/imag...hibald2007.pdf

I think it's US-only temperatures for that particular graph.

[njp]

Originally Posted by markwpage

One of his fellow 'deniers', David Archibald, has put his cards firmly on the table and produced the graph below. If he's wrong, he's wrong and if he's right, he's right. We'll soon find out.

I've just gone and found the actual paper this graph comes from. It was published, unsurprisingly, in "Energy and Environment", the social science journal that frequently hosts nonsense from McKitrick et al. I was curious about this graph, and now I know why it's so odd. The historical data which forms the baseline for the predictions is not a global mean, as you might have expected. Here is the description for that part of the graph:

Figure 3: Annual Average Temperature of Five Rural US Stations

He's used FIVE rural weather stations, all located within several hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA! And he's chosen them specifically because they "show" that temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century were lower than in the first half!

This is quite possibly the worst piece of "science" I have ever seen.

Originally Posted by njp

He's already wrong, since it wasn't warmer in the 1930's to 1950's.

Anything that dismisses Global warming is always wrong in your eyes. Thats the opinion I have come to after my short time on this forum.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Manhattan Mike

Anything that dismisses Global warming is always wrong in your eyes. Thats the opinion I have come to after my short time on this forum.

I prefer science to your opinion. If you think that five carefully selected rural stations within a few hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA tell us anything at all about global climate in the 20th Century, then you are even more naive about science than I had previously supposed.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by njp

He's already wrong, since it wasn't warmer in the 1930's to 1950's.

Originally Posted by Manhattan Mike

Anything that dismisses Global warming is always wrong in your eyes. Thats the opinion I have come to after my short time on this forum.

Mike, for goodness sake don't just say things like that and leave it hanging. There is a definitive statement there from njp.'It wasn't warmer in the 1930's to 1950's'. Surely the statement can be shown to be either true or false. If you disagree then present your evidence for everyone to see and if your evidence stands up then njp is wrong. And you are right. But your somewhat tame riposte does not further the thread one bit.

[mrm3]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Mike, for goodness sake don't just say things like that and leave it hanging. There is a definitive statement there from njp.'It wasn't warmer in the 1930's to 1950's'. Surely the statement can be shown to be either true or false. If you disagree then present your evidence for everyone to see and if your evidence stands up then njp is wrong. And you are right. But your somewhat tame riposte does not further the thread one bit.

Out of interest is it not for the person stating the fact (njp in this case) to provide the evidence to back up the claim?

[Decadence]

This just shows that nobody really knows anything about anything...or whether ther is actually anything to know anything about...

Originally Posted by markwpage

http://www.nzclimatescience.org/imag...hibald2007.pdf

I think it's US-only temperatures for that particular graph.

In fact it says 5 (!) rural US stations. I'm at a loss to see what use that could be, other than for those 5 places.

Originally Posted by njp

If you think that five carefully selected rural stations within a few hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA tell us anything at all about global climate in the 20th Century, then you are even more naive about science than I had previously supposed.

But again its your opinion, its these little things that tell us more of the truth then the blind scientists all following each others tails saying yes to everything.