Originally posted by Eladar…I do not feel that anyone is qualified to simply sit on high and tell me how things are, even though what I see around me contradicts what is being said.,…[/b]
It's amazing how people who can't argue the point rely on personal attacks to try to win a point.
I suppose it is only natural that after a point is lost that people on the losing side feel the need to try to win by piling on.
Bobson,
[b]Back to the topic at hand, my assumptions may be incorrect, but I at least have relevant experience investigatin and tell me how things are, even though what I see around me contradicts what is being said.
Exactly what do you “see around you” that contradicts what is being said?
Is there something specific that you saw that apparently contradicts the greenhouse theory? -if so, what? (-note that a temporary drop in temperature due to natural cycles doesn’t contradict the greenhouse theory because the greenhouse theory is not a theory about natural cycle)
Exactly what do you “see around you” that contradicts what is being said?
The contradictions are of what was said before things started cooling off. The statements were that the earth was going to continue warming up and warming. There were no statements about the earth ever cooling down. The statements were that the earth was warming because of greenhouse gasses, not because we were in a warming cycle.
Now that those earlier statements have been proven to be untrue, all I see are the alarmists adjusting their statements. They were wrong before, and now they hope that by changing their statements, they assume that everyone will forget about what they said earlier. I happen to remember all of the hype and I'm not willing to forget it.
Originally posted by EladarHumour me here, I love to actually hear your point rather than the vague ramblings you've spouted so far.
Given the scientific facts, I feel as qualified as the rest of the people in this thread to make make an assessment on the topic at hand. I do not feel that anyone is qualified to simply sit on high and tell me how things are, even though what I see around me contradicts what is being said.
What "Scientific facts" are you referring to here?
Certainly 90% of any peer reviewed papers I've read on the topic are neutral at best, generally leaning towards affirmation of anthropogenic climate change.
You claim others aren't qualified to make statements based on the available data. Yet you continue to make such statements yourself.
Personally I don't thing I'm qualified or versed in the topic enough to draw any comprehensive conclusions. But I am certainly versed enough to talk about the subject. I have written about it and read a significant number of papers on the topic. Granted they are all mainly about the geological aspects of climate change, I know little about atmospheric chemistry and even less about modern meteorology, but I do know quite a bit about palaeoclimatology and the geological record, putting me in good position to understand everything I read on the topic with only a little background research.
Now, please enlighten me.
1. Where exactly are your "scientific facts" coming from?,
2. How much have you actually read on the topic beyond the odd news article?.
3. How much of what you've read has actually been from peer reviewed or at least reputable scientific sources?.
4. Finally what makes you more qualified to interpret the data than say myself, or anyone else in this forum?.
- Do you study/research this?
- Have you ever studied/researched this topic?
- Do you fully understand the topic?.
- Are you even employed/qualified in a relevant field to understand this data. Relevant field is pretty broad too.
And please remember what forum your in when you reply, this isn't debates. Getting offended or offensive isn't going to help your case and nobody so far has "simply sat on high and tell you how things are" (modified for grammar) nobody who is in any way involved in science would ever intentionally do this. If you really want to discuss it and maybe learn something, I'm sure people here will gladly help you out and point you at some interesting information.
However I get the feeling you've made up your mind and won't really care about what people who understand the topic better have to say......
Originally posted by EladarI think the “statements” you are referring to are not from climatologists but rather the likes of the news media and laypeople who basically jump to conclusions when they don’t really understand the subject matter at all. This is a constant problem because the basic facts in climatology are totally misrepresented, distorted, or are simply got wrong and, similarly, the basic facts in each and every kind of science are misrepresented, distorted, or are simply got wrong in each and every science by both the news media and the common myths propagated and the conclusions jumped to by many laypeople.
[b]Exactly what do you “see around you” that contradicts what is being said?
The contradictions are of what was said before things started cooling off. The statements were that the earth was going to continue warming up and warming. There were no statements about the earth ever cooling down. The statements were that the earth was warming because of ...[text shortened]... what they said earlier. I happen to remember all of the hype and I'm not willing to forget it.[/b]
But if you want the facts about climatology then is always better to ignore what these laypeople say and listen to the people that actually know what they are talking about -the climatologists that have done actual research into climate change -obviously these climatologists generally would not be so ignorant of climatology as to confuse a short term warming spell as evidence for the longer term greenhouse effect!
…Now that those earlier statements have been proven to be untrue,...…
But those “statements” come from laypeople and the news media that don’t know what they are talking about. So, so what if some statements from some laypeople have been proven to be untrue?
-this is not “evidence” against the greenhouse theory because they (laypeople) are often NOT the ones that know what they are talking about and the greenhouse theory says nothing about short term temperature fluctuations and nor is it supposed to.
Can you give me an example of a climatologists that says that a short term warming spell is evidence for the longer term greenhouse effect!?
Originally posted by EladarThere's no winning points with you -- you'll blather on regardless of what anyone says, clinging to your cracker-barrel like a drowning man. Calling you hogwash is a simple statement of fact albeit couched in metaphor.
It's amazing how people who can't argue the point rely on personal attacks to try to win a point.
You claim others aren't qualified to make statements based on the available data. Yet you continue to make such statements yourself.
I am saying everyone is equally qualified.
1. Where exactly are your "scientific facts" coming from?,
The links I've given.
2. How much have you actually read on the topic beyond the odd news article?.
I've read quite a few articles and seen many documentaries on how global warming is going to cause the earth to heat up. The documentaries said that it was the CO2 that was causing the global warming. Nothing was said about how we were in a warming cycle.
3. How much of what you've read has actually been from peer reviewed or at least reputable scientific sources?.
I don't know if the articles I've linked have been peer reviewed. But I do know that they explain what's actually happening, unlike CO2 causing the earth to get hotter and hotter. You know, the dooms day stuff that I was told about in the 90's.
4. Finally what makes you more qualified to interpret the data than say myself, or anyone else in this forum?.
I'm not saying I am. What I'm saying is that one group can explain why world is cooling today, while the other group can't. Global Warming alarmists never claimed that we would be going through cooling cycles.
So instead of playing the "you aren't qualified to question" game, try playing the "let's look at what's actually going on" game. Try remembering all of the information that you were told or read about in the 90's about global warming and see if it predicted what's happening today.
By the way, I'm not saying that CO2 doesn't cause a rise in temp, I'm just saying that it isn't the major factor. The major factor is the natural warming and cooling cycle.
Maybe you missed my post.
Originally posted by Nemesio
What criteria would you need to have met in order to believe that humankind,
through its pollution, is contributing significantly to global climate change
(not solely responsible for it, of course)?
Originally posted by Eladar
I am saying everyone is equally qualified.
Certainly, you don't think that a scientist who has studied the field is equally
qualified as a sixth-grader who has just taken 4 weeks of meteorology, right?
By the way, I'm not saying that CO2 doesn't cause a rise in temp, I'm just saying that it isn't the major factor. The major factor is the natural warming and cooling cycle.
When would CO2 be a major factor? That is, you recognize the presence of
increased CO2 has an effect, but you say the effect is negligible. At what
levels of CO2 would you say that the effect was significant, and at what levels
would you say that it would be alarming?
Nemesio
Certainly, you don't think that a scientist who has studied the field is equally
qualified as a sixth-grader who has just taken 4 weeks of meteorology, right?
I'm saying everyone posting in this thread is equally qualified to argue their points. As far as global warming vs natural cycles, the proof is self evident.
When would CO2 be a major factor? That is, you recognize the presence of
increased CO2 has an effect, but you say the effect is negligible.
When it over rides the natural cycle.
Originally posted by NemesioHow am I being coy? As I said, global warming is global warming. When the CO2 levels make it so that the earth is continuing to warm, even though we are in a cooling cycle, then I'll buy into global warming.
Stop being coy. At what levels would it override the natural cycle?
Nemesio
Until then, the earth will continue to heat and cool and we will be a bit warmer than otherwise it would have been. The world will not come to an end.
Originally posted by EladarI am saying everyone is equally qualified.
You claim others aren't qualified to make statements based on the available data. Yet you continue to make such statements yourself.
I am saying everyone is equally qualified.
1. Where exactly are your "scientific facts" coming from?,
The links I've given.
2. How much have you actually read on the topic beyond the odd news or factor. The major factor is the natural warming and cooling cycle.
To directly quote you "Then the rest of your post is hog wash." And no everyone is not equally qualified to make these statements. A climatologist is certainly more qualified to make them than you or I. Equally generally the person with more research behind their statments is more qualified also.
The links I've given.
It's a highly subjective topic which takes more than a telegraph article and the opinions of a few scientists to form even a vague understanding of. I'm not dismissing the point of view as such, but I've been following various lines of research for a few years now and have only really cemented my opinion recently. Specifically it was at a talk referring to atmospheric CO2 levels as recorded by Ice cores, shells of certain fauna, and speleothems. The correlation between the Atmospheric CO2 spikes and the start of slash and burn farming is quite convincing.
I've read quite a few articles and seen many documentaries on how global warming is going to cause the earth to heat up. The documentaries said that it was the CO2 that was causing the global warming. Nothing was said about how we were in a warming cycle.
The warming cycles are fairly subjective subject matter anyway. How long? What controls them, are they real.... All remain vaguely unanswered questions. Climate is cyclical, and by most measures we've definitely affected that cycle. Think of a big sine wave, with smaller parasitic sine waves distorting it and smaller waves again distorting them, now view it as an effective fractal and you'll begin to get the Idea.
http://ic.ucsc.edu/~casey/eart150/Lectures/Folds/Fig10_13.jpg (crap image but you get the idea)
That's kind of what the climate cycle looks like, and there simply isn't enough data available to make solid predictions. We do know that CO2 causes warming thought.
I don't know if the articles I've linked have been peer reviewed. But I do know that they explain what's actually happening, unlike CO2 causing the earth to get hotter and hotter. You know, the dooms day stuff that I was told about in the 90's.
CO2 does increase warming, there is a great example in the geological record of a massive dead coral bed turning over and realising enough trapped CO2 to briefly (geologically anyway) increase the temperature. Ill find a reference and get back to you.
The earth will warm, but as it does caps melt, causing ocean cooling which changes sea temperature, affecting the climate and causing brief cooling in a warming curve, this is grossly simplified. Take the example of Ireland, we should freeze in winter but due to the gulf stream we have mild (and crap) weather all year, if you drop the sea temperate by just 1 degree due to overall warming melting the caps. we loose the gulf stream resulting in catastrophic cooling.
I'm not saying I am. What I'm saying is that one group can explain why world is cooling today, while the other group can't. Global Warming alarmists never claimed that we would be going through cooling cycles.
I think I just covered this one
Try understanding the information and its consequences before trying to deny a fully document phenomenon.
By the way, I'm not saying that CO2 doesn't cause a rise in temp, I'm just saying that it isn't the major factor. The major factor is the natural warming and cooling cycle.
Actually the major factors aren't that well understood, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles for details on the mid term ones, what drives the longer term ones is even less understood.
You see we're only a small blip on the planetary time-scale so the minor cycles are more important to s than the greater ones, people like to use the greater ones to discredit the anthropogenic ones, but to be honest its a bit like comparing apples and oranges.... both fruit..... that's about it....