Global Warming debate

[Stewart]

That is simply untrue. You offer no evidence to back that statement up and you ignore the evidence from the NASA link I posted earlier which makes it abundantly clear that we have had plenty of warmer years since 1998.

"NASA's announcement this year — that 2010 ties 2005 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record — made headlines. "


http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/

I am referring to the more accurate satellite data. Your link is uisng thermometers that are based in cities which have artifical warming/heat sources.

 

[90019]

As for their not being enough evidence - this is also untrue. There's plenty of evidence to support the theory that global warming is man made. What there isn't is the ability to prove that conclusively and remove absolutely all doubt.

There's plenty to suggest it isn't as well. Neither side can be proved conclusively.

Cutting down on use of finite resources is just common sense, regardless of what you believe.

 

[Snapper]

I am referring to the more accurate satellite data. Your link is uisng thermometers that are based in cities which have artifical warming/heat sources.

Once again, that is completely untrue:

"The analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperature and Antarctic research station measurements. A computer program uses the data to calculate temperature anomalies — the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same period during 1951 to 1980. This three-decade period acts as a baseline for the analysis. "

I also note that the graph that you've used doesn't actually support your own assertion.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

 

[Stewart]

Once again, that is completely untrue:

"The analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperature and Antarctic research station measurements. A computer program uses the data to calculate temperature anomalies — the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same period during 1951 to 1980. This three-decade period acts as a baseline for the analysis. "

I also note that the graph that you've used doesn't actually support your own assertion.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

Data from 1000 meteorological stations you say? Such as ones like these:

I'd take a guess that we're likely to see some "manmade warming" at those stations.

When we disregard these sorts of stations, and just use satellites, we see that global warming did indeed stop in 1998.

 

[Snapper]

Once again, completely untrue - but typical of the distortions that we get from the sceptics. I note that you've ignored the fact that your original claim was shown to be false.

Here's the real picture:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html?full=true

 

[Stewart]

Distortions? I find that completely unnecessary, implying deception or lying?

Satellite data shows 1998 temperatures have not been surpassed in the last 13 years. That means global warming has stopped.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Satellite data shows 1998 temperatures have not been surpassed in the last 13 years. That means global warming has stopped.

It hasn't.

Why the difference? The main reason is that there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic Ocean, the place on Earth that has been warming fastest. The Hadley record simply excludes this area, whereas the NASA version assumes its surface temperature is the same as that of the nearest land-based stations.

 

[Snapper]

Distortions? I find that completely unnecessary, implying deception or lying?

Satellite data shows 1998 temperatures have not been surpassed in the last 13 years. That means global warming has stopped.

No. It does not show that at all:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

I note that you haven't supplied any real science to back up that claim. Even the chart you supplied didn't support you. Of course, the reason is obvious - the data doesn't support your assertion in the slightest.

There's more that deals specifically with the 'it stopped in 1998' claim here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Distortions? I find that completely unnecessary, implying deception or lying?

You did try to deceive with your claim on how the figures supplied by NASA were arrived at. Clearly, it wasn't true.

 

[Goldfish62]

And what about all those billions of years before the Industrial Revolution?

You can't use data from just 2 centuries to make a point about something that has been happening for billions of years. That's like seeing the temperature is a little less today than it was yesterday and using that to say it must have been getting colder over the last century.

Sorry, but you're completely wrong. All those science programmes on TV have clearly explained how temperatures and CO2 levels thoughout the ages can be measured.

And what's more, large climate changes can easily in less than a century.

When climate change started becoming an issue, I was neutral, but took the time to find out about the science. I have not come across a single climate change denier who has taken the trouble to find out about and understand the science behind it. The best they can come out with is either that the Daily Mail told them it didn't exist, or that it was cold last winter.

 

[Stewart]

No. It does not show that at all:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

I note that you haven't supplied any real science to back up that claim. Even the chart you supplied didn't support you. Of course, the reason is obvious - the data doesn't support your assertion in the slightest.

There's more that deals specifically with the 'it stopped in 1998' claim here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You did try to deceive with your claim on how the figures supplied by NASA were arrived at. Clearly, it wasn't true.

It is true that NASA use weather stations, and I showed a few examples a few posts up.

1998 has not been surpassed in the satellite record. A record that is not distorted by having temperatures readings from car parks or next to barbecues.

 

[Snapper]

1998 has not been surpassed in the satellite record. A record that is not distorted by having temperatures readings from car parks or next to barbecues.

Yet again, completely untrue - as anyone who can read a chart can see - and the charts are all here for anyone to look at. I've published the information here for anyone to see that this is a bonkers view.

Like I said before - the typical distortions and inability to deal with the science that we usually see from the deniers. Satellites measure a whole range of temperatures - and not just on land. Whatever, this rather odd obsession with satellite data whilst at the same time misrepresenting what it says is very odd.

Next to barbecues? What an utterly silly remark - as one can see from the ocean measurements. You won't find any fires there...

 

[exile]

It is true that NASA use weather stations, and I showed a few examples a few posts up.

1998 has not been surpassed in the satellite record. A record that is not distorted by having temperatures readings from car parks or next to barbecues.

It's already been acknowledged that 1998 is the warmest year on record, as measured by surface stations as well as satellites. That doesn't mean global warming has stopped. Global warming doesn't imply that every year will be warmer than the previous one. The effect of increasing CO2 is, year on year, much smaller than normal annual variations so only shows up when taking a longer term. Your satellite graph, for example, still shows temperatures significantly higher than 20 years before.

Anyway

1. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes
2. Is it increasing as a proportion of the atmosphere? Yes
3. Would you expect this to make the climate warmer, cooler or to have no effect? Warmer

QED. The questions remain over what effect exactly this will have on weather systems and sea levels, but I've seen no-one able to deny the logic above (apart from a few people on this thread who deny (1))

 

[Snapper]

It is true that NASA use weather stations, and I showed a few examples a few posts up..

So you claim. There's no evidence at all to support your assertion. It's also an assertion that completely ignores the reality - which is that NASA and all the other models use a vast array of equipment to measure temperatures - and many of these do not measure ground temperatures alone - or in isolation.

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/42690

 

[90019]

Sorry, but you're completely wrong. All those science programmes on TV have clearly explained how temperatures and CO2 levels thoughout the ages can be measured.

I'd be very wary of getting your science from programs on TV. The majority of them tend to contain very little science at all. A lot of it is purely rhetoric.
Whilst they can measure CO2 levels and temperaures to a point, they have still only gone back a relatively short period of time.

And what's more, large climate changes can easily in less than a century.

Indeed they can, but you can't use a single change in climate over a few hundred years as evidence for an argument about a phenomenon that has been occuring for billions of years.

I have not come across a single climate change denier who has taken the trouble to find out about and understand the science behind it.

I've seen both people who have looking into the science behind it and people who haven't on both sides of the argument. There are also plenty of people who read up on it, decide they want to believe one side that and automatically dismiss the people on the other side.

The best they can come out with is either that the Daily Mail told them it didn't exist, or that it was cold last winter.

And then you have the people who believe it is happening because of what the papers have told them or because it was hot last summer.


I'm currently on neither side. When conclusive evidence is available, I'll make a decision.

 

[Snapper]

I'm currently on neither side. When conclusive evidence is available, I'll make a decision.

Sadly, the planet doesn't have that luxury. In reality, neither do you.

 

[90019]

Sadly, the planet doesn't have that luxury. In reality, neither do you.

Whilst I'm not on either side, as I said previously;

Cutting down on use of finite resources is just common sense, regardless of what you believe.

 

[Stewart]

Sadly, the planet doesn't have that luxury. In reality, neither do you.

What is the planet's optimum temperature?

 

[Snapper]

Optimum temperature? An utterly pointless question in the context of this debate.

 

[Stewart]

Optimum temperature? An utterly pointless question in the context of this debate.

Well you seem to think the current temperature is superior to one a fraction of a percent warmer.

 

[Snapper]

Well you seem to think the current temperature is superior to one a fraction of a percent warmer.

Err, it's called global warming and it's the trend that matters. The basic science and its implications are really quite simple..

 

[90019]

Err, it's called global warming and it's the trend that matters.

Though, it's not been called global warming for some years, since that's a misnomer, and is just referred to as climate change now.

 

[Stewart]

Err, it's called global warming and it's the trend that matters. The basic science and its implications are really quite simple..

Unfortunate that the climate is immensely complex then, no?

 

[Snapper]

Modelling the climate is complex (which is why comments about barbecues just make people look silly). Understanding the potential impact of a warming planet is much simpler. All the information is out there for those with an inquiring mind and the willingness to use it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Though, it's not been called global warming for some years, since that's a misnomer, and is just referred to as climate change now.

Don't get so hung up on labels. What matters is the cause and effect.

 

[Stewart]

Modelling the climate is complex (which is why comments about barbecues just make people look silly). Understanding the potential impact of a warming planet is much simpler. All the information is out there for those with an inquiring mind and the willingness to use it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Don't get so hung up on labels. What matters is the cause and effect.

Not as silly as having weather stations slap bang next to a barbecue though, and then relying on that data to tell you what the climate has been doing.

And I agree, the information is out there. The start for many people is now the Climategate emails.

 

[Snapper]

Not as silly as having weather stations slap bang next to a barbecue though, and then relying on that data to tell you what the climate has been doing..

The same silly, simplistic (and unsubstantiated) slur that ignores the real science and the datasets.

You haven't managed to come up with a single piece of data that supports any of your assertions. The one chart you produced actually disproved what you were trying to suggest! Now we're reduced to even more immature comment.

But this is rather typical of the level we've come to expect from the deniers.

 

[Minilad]

But this is rather typical of the level we've come to expect from the deniers.

Seems to me both sides of this argument are as bad as each other.

 

[Stewart]

The same silly, simplistic (and unsubstantiated) slur that ignores the real science and the datasets.

You haven't managed to come up with a single piece of data that supports any of your assertions. The one chart you produced actually disproved what you were trying to suggest! Now we're reduced to even more immature comment.

But this is rather typical of the level we've come to expect from the deniers.

I wondered when the D word would come out

You'll notice there's a picture of said barbecue next to a weather station on the previous page so it's hardly unsubstantiated

Fact is 1) global warming ended in 1998, and 2) even if it re-starts it'll be beneficial for humans and the planet. All the bluster we get from the Vested Interests is based on misanthropic ideology.

 

[Snapper]

Seems to me both sides of this argument are as bad as each other.

Not at all. The science is real and there's volumes of it - and it all correlates pretty closely - unlike clearly silly remarks about barbecues.

Climates science is rigorously researched and it's regularly reviewed. One only has to look at the depth of discussions on sites like realclimate.org to see that. On the other hand we have the deniers - who often rely on journalistic sensationalism rather than science.

 

[Minilad]

Not at all. The science is real and there's volumes of it - and it all correlates pretty closely - unlike clearly silly remarks about barbecues.

Climates science is rigorously researched and it's regularly reviewed. One only has to look at the depth of discussions on sites like realclimate.org to see that. On the other hand we have the deniers - who often rely on journalistic sensationalism rather than science.

If you ask me I would say it's the Believers who rely on sensationalism in the press to scare people. Not the other way round.

 

[Snapper]

I wondered when the D word would come out

You'll notice there's a picture of said barbecue next to a weather station on the previous page so it's hardly unsubstantiated

Fact is 1) global warming ended in 1998, and 2) even if it re-starts it'll be beneficial for humans and the planet. All the bluster we get from the Vested Interests is based on misanthropic ideology.

Repeating untruths doesn't make them any more believable. We have no idea what the equipment in the picture is used for or who the data it collects is supplied to. So, yes, it is completely unsubstantiated.

The idea that global warming ended in 1998 has been thoroughly discredited in this thread. Even your own graph demonstrated that!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you ask me I would say it's the Believers who rely on sensationalism in the press to scare people. Not the other way round.

The evidence doesn't support your opinion.