Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

Recommended Posts

You get a warming on the Hadley series for the same reason you get a warming on every other series: the temperature has increased.

 

Phillip Eden runs a provisional CET based on the Manley sites:

 

http://www.climate-uk.com/provisional.htm

 

There's no question its become warmer (my own records back to 1980 show the same), the cause however is open to debateTheres

There"s no argument that it has become warmer over the last350 yrs but linked to AGW its not lets take the central England data base the oldest in the world Posted ImageThe first line the green line shows a warming of 0.26 per century no surprise there considering the earth been warming since the mini ice age, the second thing about this chart temperatures go up and down over 350yrs no pattern there so CO2 cannot be a factor in GW considering co2 has risen over the last century.So our Earth Temperatures is all climate cycles,people really need to read what hes shows is 1691 – 1720, 5.039 °C/century

1978 – 2007, 5.038 °C/century

1977 – 2006, 4.95 °C/century

1690 – 1719, 4.754 °C/century

1979 – 2008, 4.705 °C/century

1688 – 1717, 4.7 °C/century

1692 – 1721, 4.642 °C/century

1694 – 1723, 4.524 °C/century

1689 – 1718, 4.446 °C/century

1687 – 1716, 4.333 °C/century So it shows the fastest warming trends,which shows warming was a lot faster in the 18th century than it is now yearshttp://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/warming-trends-in-england-from-1659.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29&utm_content=Google+Reader  

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an extraordinary rambling and confused article, but no wonder - since it more or less reports the extraordinary rambling confusion and speculation which is being trotted out to explain how record high ice must be somehow caused by 'warming'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

recent North American freeze wasn't anything special

Wrong government data shows 10yr cooling in USA.http://t.co/Y1M4sNic65

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a circular argument going on in the man made thread, attached is a interesting read, I think some of the 'examples' are poor but it does show whats gone over the last 30/40 years.

 

Global Warming Theory ~ Circular reasoning at its best

 

http://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/global-warming-theory-circular-reasoning-at-its-best/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a circular argument going on in the man made thread, attached is a interesting read, I think some of the 'examples' are poor but it does show whats gone over the last 30/40 years.

 

Global Warming Theory ~ Circular reasoning at its best

 

http://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/global-warming-theory-circular-reasoning-at-its-best/

Lol says it all really more and more http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/10/meet-prof-camilo-mora-the-man-who-uses-climate-models-to-warn-you-of-the-coming-plague-a-climate-plague-affecting-every-living-thing-will-likely-start-in-2020-in-southern-indonesia-scienti/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here is a chart to show Global sea ice at it maximum on July 2nd 2014 the largest sea ice cover since 1989, and the fourth largest on record. Please don't tell me this is the result of manmade climate change, or of the like because I think its a load of rubbish :nonono:

post-6830-0-30774300-1404671242_thumb.gi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More scaremongering from AGW

  • Claim was made by Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, when speaking to Harold Ambler at Talking About the Weather
  • Shift is caused by water melting from beneath the Antarctic ice shelves
  • Scientists claim it is then re-frozen back on surface, increasing sea ice
  • However Nasa warns that growing Antarctic sea ice is less significant a measure than declining Arctic sea ice when assessing climate change
  • Antarctica’s sea ice set a record this week, reaching 815,448 square miles (1,312,000 square km) of ice above its normal range
Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a circular argument going on in the man made thread, attached is a interesting read, I think some of the 'examples' are poor but it does show whats gone over the last 30/40 years.

 

Global Warming Theory ~ Circular reasoning at its best

 

http://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/global-warming-theory-circular-reasoning-at-its-best/

 

At the end of the day, Stew, you have catastrophists, you have realists, and you have utter climate change rejection. Most people on here, actually, fall very close to the centre - despite what you might read from day to day. There are exceptions, of course.

 

Anyway - quick update: my new climate model - using infinite precision mathematics - is coming on well. Lots of hard work and study, and preliminary results are surprising, given the consensus. Got two universities interested, so looking good. Biggest result, perhaps, is: don't get climate scientists to write software: they are incredibly [email protected] at it.

Edited by Sparkicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, Stew, you have catastrophists, you have realists, and you have utter climate change rejection. Most people on here, actually, fall very close to the centre - despite what you might read from day to day. There are exceptions, of course.

 

Anyway - quick update: my new climate model - using infinite precision mathematics - is coming on well. Lots of hard work and study, and preliminary results are surprising, given the consensus. Got two universities interested, so looking good. Biggest result, perhaps, is: don't get climate scientists to write software: they are incredibly [email protected] at it.

 

I did say I felt some of the 'examples' were poor.

 

The point I was trying to get across was , what we see as good factual science now will be very different in 30 years time

 

We struggle to estimate Arctic ice levels within 20/30% certainty year on year yet some made man folk put absolute certainty on how the Antarctica will look in 200 or even 500yrs from now based on small scale inconclusive recent studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting how the other thread post all these facts like there a done deal. Extra heat going into the oceans its a theory nothing more. Seeing a straight global sea ice line and say its declining if we exclude a few recent years. Global sea levels are above the long term average the reason can be debated but cant that simple statement be accepted

Edited by stewfox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think they labour under the opinion that most others are exactly like themselves and so do not realise what buffoons they can appear when they make such ridiculous statements ( as if they were 'Facts')?

 

 

Oh the irony GW, no wonder your posting is limited with drivel like that. 

 

Let's wait & see if some of your posts turn out to be correct or whether you will be made to look like a "buffoon" as you put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the irony GW, no wonder your posting is limited with drivel like that. 

 

Let's wait & see if some of your posts turn out to be correct or whether you will be made to look like a "buffoon" as you put it.

When have you ever seen any doom and gloom posts come to fruition?answer never ,all have seen the end of Arctic ice stories the end of Antarctic ice stories,wait a second AGW causes ice growth and ice loss ,AGW  are fighting hard to find logical reasons for ice growth which they fail to do, so they resort to insults and gagging of opposing views instead.

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When have you ever seen any doom and gloom posts come to fruition?answer never ,all have seen the end of Arctic ice stories the end of Antarctic ice stories,wait a second AGW causes ice growth and ice loss ,AGW  are fighting hard to find logical reasons for ice growth which they fail to do, so they resort to insults and gagging of opposing views instead.

 

 

A model challenge

 

Since scientists don't yet fully understand why Antarctic sea ice is growing, models haven't been able to predict the increase. Montford suggests this is "something of an embarrassment for climate modellers, making them reluctant to talk about it."

 

How does anyone think global sea ice is in decline ?? 750,000 sq kms above the long term average

post-7914-0-28503900-1404844423_thumb.jp

Edited by stewfox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the end result is very worrying! ( seeing as the other thread would demand it yesterday or label it a 'fraud' they would not have any concerns though)

Not really GW. What we would like to see however is some (any?) of the predictions come to fruition. Sadly they seem to keep moving into the future....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-70#entry2999935

 

 

I'm not sure that we would all like to see that. I certainly wouldn't. Possibly the most famous prediction of them all and it was certainly spot on.

 

 

A for a prediction moving into the future I'm intrigued how it can move into the past.

 

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/home/hawkins_jones_2013_Callendar.pdf

 

Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.
 
Niels Bohr 

 

Yes a prediction is in the future, if I predict I'll make £10 in 2 years & after 1 year I change that prediction to 3 years what has happened to the prediction? It's moved FURTHER into the future.

 

When I see one single prediction that has been made by these experts (& the keyboard warriors on here) come true (maybe before 2100 though, eh?) I'll believe they know what they are talking about.  As it stands they make predictions, they don't happen so they come up with new ideas (claiming science has moved on) and new predictions.

 

Maybe the argument here isn't whether it's warming or not more whether these experts have a clue what will happen & when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In 1938, Guy Stewart Callendar was the first to demonstrate that the Earth’sland surface was warming. Callendar also suggested that the production ofcarbon dioxide by the combustion of fossil fuels was responsible for much of this modern change in climate. This short note marks the 75th anniversary of Callendar’s landmark study and demonstrates that his global land temperature estimates agree remarkably well with more recent analyses

 & yet at one point (still?) we were told there is a lag of some 6-800 years between CO2 & temperature increases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 & yet at one point (still?) we were told there is a lag of some 6-800 years between CO2 & temperature increases?

In the eagerness to reply you both seem to have failed to answer that simple question. Which is it? Is there a lag or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I see one single prediction that has been made by these experts (& the keyboard warriors on here) come true (maybe before 2100 though, eh?) I'll believe they know what they are talking about. 

 

Can you point me to the experts that do then..? Because out of all the scientists (97%) seem to be doing a great job of predicting the future Climate, Throwing all the evidence at it collected from all over the Globe. Just visual evidence alone in nature is enough to draw a conclusion. Yes Science does change with evidence (that's science)... And in the grand scheme of Climate there notion continues to build.

 

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

 

Posted Image

Edited by Polar Maritime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-70#entry2999964

 

 

So the answer to your question is yes there was a lag, but man in in his infinite wisdom is ensuring we currently don't require one.

 

That aside, it's hardly rocket science that CO2 levels are rising, as you say fossil fuel burning releases CO2.

 

What doesn't seem to be happening is the run away warming that was predicted. When that didn't happen they suddenly say the oceans are absorbing the CO2 (to explain away the fact that CO2 levels are increasing to rise yet the rises in temperature are not following this).

 

If we don't see a huge increase in temps (as in the 2-6 degrees now predicted) what then? More "new science" to explain what's going on?

Edited by Paul
Leave the personal digs out please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...