Climate change - Hoax ?
Comments
-
OffTheBackAdam wrote:Right, lots of meat in here, but (like me) a lot of fat to wade through to get there!
Climate changes, always has and always will.
That bit I believe that we all can accept. Our question is, to what extent are we altering it and on what scale?
Let's start with jolly old Blighty! One poster has put a chart up, showing temperatures soaring away. I didn't recognise it from the well-know CET data set. (Central England Temperatures)
[img][/img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Yearly.png
Lots of variation there and what slope to put on it is very dependant on your starting point. Start at 1745 & we're having an OMFG! moment.
This is something to beware of when looking at recorded data. There does seem to be a "step change" around 1980.
I guess this is the image that you are referring to:
This is my version of the same data presented in a similar fashion, but without a spurious linear trendline, and as a proper scatterplot, which I'd argue makes it easier to see.
I noticed that the data is noisy, so I used a technique that is used in manufacturing to spot trends whhen trying to control processes, and which is good at removing noise, this is called a cusum (techie link here: http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section3/pmc323.htm)
I used a slightly modified and simplified version of this, where I set a "target value" so that the longest period was roughly horizontal. I calculated the *difference* from this target value and added it to the running total. This acts to smooth out variation, so is good at seing trends, and it is also pretty robust, i.e. not prone to false alarms.
When you plot this, as below, you can see where the temperature changes, which is where the slope changes.
England certainly is warming (I did this in 2007, hence the data stopping then)
You can see the warming starting between about 1900 and 1920, and accelerate about 1980
0 -
cjw wrote:Porgy wrote:So while there's been little rising overall - we are certainly right at the top of a peak right now - what are the chances of us sliding down again - or are we flat-lining for a couple of decades then rising again?
Do you know?
At last - well done!
Now the paper I linked to argues that we are flatlining for next 10 years and then we carry on rising again.
However, the difficulty I have is simple. Over the past 10 years humans have been pumping out more CO2 than ever before - much much more, so one would expect temperature to rise if the climate change models were correct. However empirical data doesn't support this as the temperatures have not increased, and as I said over past 2 years are falling.
Sorry I just don;t see your point - the report states that "decreasing solar irradiance" "countered much of the anthropogenic warming"
Surely you realise that the models are only as good as the data they are based on - and if solar activity wasn't included as a factor then they will deviate from reality - but take the reduced solar affect away - and the temperatures will come right back up again.
so what's your point?0 -
Porgy wrote:Seems I'm being attacked by both sides now - so I guess my "balanced" approach is working. :?
Hey, I'm not attacking you, just providing some further evidence...0 -
jimmypippa wrote:Porgy wrote:Seems I'm being attacked by both sides now - so I guess my "balanced" approach is working. :?
Hey, I'm not attacking you, just providing some further evidence...
ah ok - i must admit i'm getting tired - will be heading off home shortly.
Unfortunately your link didn't work for me - i'll try again at home.0 -
Porgy wrote:
ah ok - i must admit i'm getting tired - will be heading off home shortly.
Unfortunately your link didn't work for me - i'll try again at home.
Odd... I use (and recommend) that as one of my reference books on engineering statistics:
so here is the frontpage
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/index.htm0 -
Now on to solar activity....
This is solar activity, looks a lot like climate change graphs doesn't it?
I wonder if this is what could be predominately driving the changes in temperature. Note especially the increases exactly when industrialisation starts in 1900s.
To Porgy, the point I make is that you can't subtract solar activity and be left with human causes. The solar activity IS the main cause and the human bit makes almost no difference.
These papers are for another day however.0 -
Seems to me Porgy is trying to outdo Giantsasquatch in completely monopolising a topic... :oops: :roll:Start with a budget, finish with a mortgage!0
-
One explanation may be the effect of (man made) Global Dimming:cjw wrote:cjw wrote:How about considering the implications of this paper;
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/~ ... /Oct20.pdf
How will Earth’s surface temperature change in future decades?
Judith L. Lean1 and David H. Rind21. Introduction
[2] Global surface temperature increased 0.7C during
the twentieth century and is projected to cause a further 1
to 4C increase during the twenty first century, primarily
as a result of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases
[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
2007]. Yet as Figure 1 shows, global surface temperatures
warmed little, if at all, from 2002 to 2008, even as greenhouse
gas concentrations have increased, causing some to
question the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
Now, these guys are 100% pro AGW SO.....they go on to seek to adjust the model to show that global warming is still occuring - just you can't see it for either the last 10 years or the next 10 years or so!
There was an excellent Horizon about it and it's effect on climate (transcript). Excerpt:... Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming. ...... DR DAVID TRAVIS: The nine eleven study showed that if you remove a contributor to Global Dimming, jet contrails, just for a three day period, we see an immediate response of the surface of temperature. Do the same thing globally we might see a large scale increase in global warming.
NARRATOR: This is the real sting in the tail. Solve the problem of Global Dimming and the world could get considerably hotter. And this is not just theory, it may already be happening. In Western Europe the steps we have taken to cut air pollution have started to bear fruit in a noticeable improvement in air quality and even a slight reduction in Global Dimming over the last few years. Yet at the same time, after decades in which they held steady, European temperatures have started rapidly to rise culminating in the savage summer of 2003. ...A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
Porgy wrote:some questions:
Can you explain how these models are wrong - I have some modelling experience - and I can't say I understand in which way climate models are being used differently than any other sort of model.Slapshot wrote:Why can they keep spinning the yarn about the execellence of these models when they are fundamentally wrong in the way they were created, data creates the model not the other way about?
To my mind when you create a model however complex or simplistic, you use baseline data to verify that your model is truly representative of what you are representing. The AGW Architects, created a model then threw out all the data that did not fit what they wanted to see, therefore no accurate baseline to take representative model runs from. If you start with any incomplete dataset errors grow exponentially.This is the model that they continue to use as a basis of HC1,2, 3.I remember tweaking the one I created all ways - until I got it to replicate experimental results and then I used it to produce theoretical results which down the line proved to be pretty accurate. Obviously climate models are a lot more complicated than the one I created, but the principles of use should be similar.
Correct, but if you don't do that........ ask yourself why there's been such a furore over the UEA data issues, IPCC now investigating. UEA work very closely with the Hadley Centre/IPCC..... what's in these emails, is there conclusive eveidence to suggest manipulation, I concerns me that there's beenm such a big thing made of it.
[qoute]
have you examples? [/quote]Why are there eminent climatologists who cannot gain research posts because of their heretical views?
Not that can be public
what are the real effects of Global Warming?Why do IPCC never tell anyone the REAL end effects of Global Warming?
Go boil a kettle stick a thermometer in it it'll boil at 100°C boil a kettle of Salty water it boils a few degrees higher than that, therefore a salt solution will hold more heat, agree? simple physics.
If Global temps rise as suggested and the icecaps melt as suggested and billions of tons of fresh water are dumped into the oceans yes sea levels will rise3but the salinity will drop markedly. This will reduce the ability of the oceans to hold heat therefore reducung the thermal gradients across the oceans. Thermohaline currents are convective ocean currents that drive the global weather engine (El Nino La Nina are ocean currents) As the thermal gradients reduce then the thermohaline currents reduce and slow. This in turn allows the global warming/global cooling balance to swing interms of cooling, with a long term inability to reverse it we fall into another ice age. This cooling would be rapid 30 to 40 years!! That';s the real effect, that's what's not being told.
i think the importance of the Greenhouse Effect has been thoroughly acknowledged by science - and the dangers of runaway Greenhosue effect too.Why do they never talk about the fact that unless the Greenhouse Principle did exist the actual global temperature would be around -15°C?
It may be accepted as important but the way that nature balance the warmin/cooling effects does not appear to be well known. Nature has a way of righting itself. Just when we think we've got it sussed, nature throws the curve ball (Christmas Tsunami is a prime example, we know how they work, nah think again)
even if true - it's got to be a concern hasn't it?Why do they never tell you that the net effect won't be catastrophic raising of sea levels but a fairly rapid drop into an ice age?
Back to risk, what the easiest risk to deal with? rising tides? rampant Glaciation? As an individual do you insure against the greatest risk or the least risk?? Governments IN MY OPINION are looking at the least risk because it's easier to deal with.
[/quote]
glad to see you're keeping an open mind. 8)Before you come back with all sorts of stuff to cut me down well remember we've had this crap forced down our necks for 20 years, I've heard most of it..... I'm still not convinced
I do have an open mind, get fed up reading about, hearing about and having the AGW BS thrown at me..... BUT...if someone can convince me I'll listen0 -
I used to be an AGW 'believer' but i'm now becomming more 'agnostic'.0
-
Wahay...let's play the Monibot game!!jimmypippa wrote:Slapshot wrote:
I have posted my back of the envelope calculations, which, although simplistic agree pretty well with what most meterologists are saying.
No you'd agree with what a climatologist would say, there 's a world of difference. We concentrate on the here and now, Climatologists talk in geological time scales.What do you disagree with?
1) CO2 levels rising at about the rate that you'd expect if mankind was topping up wat was already there?
co2 levels rise and fall with nature and:
Ernst George Beck recently reviewed these early measurements combining the results from several studies and his paper titled “180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” was published in Energy & Environment, 2007, Volume 18, Number 2.
This paper concluded actual measured atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher than current levels in the recent past. The high level maxima’s occurred around 1825, 1857 and 1942. The carbon dioxide levels in 1942 exceeded 400 ppm.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is neither unusual nor abnormal but fits well within the range of measured levels during the 19th and 20th centuries.“ Marusek 07
So there's no abnormalities in the co2 flux. A moderate sized volcanic eruption can chuck out more co2 than humanity generates in a year. The inference is we have a few big volcanic eruptions and in what we churn out and we're snookered..... CO2 levels will always rise and fall.
The Greenhouse effect via atmospheric composition has been blamed for mass extinctions at the end of the Permian (~245 Mya) and Cretaceous (~65 Mya) and the "paradox of the faint young sun" described by Carl Sagan for the very early earth. However the converse End-Ordovician (~450 mya), Permian-Triassic (~250mya) and Late Devonian mass extinctions (~635mya) talk about similar mass extinctions through massive periods of global cooling.
Good wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
CO2 changes are cyclic and mans influence is a tiny part of the overall picture.2) The world is warming?
0.74°+0.18°C yup it is on 3/12/09 I can categorically agree with that, what happens in 5 or ten years time if there is a shown decrease in global tempoerature?? Again these things are cyclic and NO-ONE knows the periods of these cycles.3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
No disagreement, so is water vapour, which is the more dangerous in terms of climate???4) That climate change is going to cause problems because cities will be in the wrong place if climate belts move?
Yes there will be issues, NOT because of climate change but because of where the cities were built. Don't blame Climate Change for mans stupidity. Climate change has been occuring since the start of the planet.....it outdates humanity by almost a billion years!!5) That mankind's activities can have an effect on the climate?
Probably but who can say definativley yet. The IPCC and AGW people think yes the skeptics say no, the scientific agrument rages on
And why?Porgy wrote:I am currently engaged in questioning it.
I'm looking at the whole matter of alledged fraudelent data at the moment - and what the implication may be. I shall report back duly. :P
Decided to shelf the matter of pulling to pieces the Daily Mail article for the moment unless anyone particularly objects - as I feel that getting to the root of the issue is probably a priority...and nobody seems to be particulalry keen to support either Plimer or the Daily Mail at the moment. I feel it is too easy a target - and therefore of little benefit to anyone.
I now have enough reading material to take me into the middle of next week.
I may come out of all this able to write a paper.
or maybe I'll just end up confused.
Mind = open 8)
The bit in red, I know that you are remembering about the physical evidence from ice caps...
Remembering that as this paperpoints out, in 2003, glaciers in the the Swiss alps had retreated further than at any time in the previous 5000 years.
Okay, Slapshot's Theory, we are retreating from the last Ice Age to the next peak in global temperature, as we're continually told therefore the retreat of glaciers and reduction of the ice coverage at the poles will happen because weve been told to expect that. However before 5000 years ago what happenned??? Did Glaciers just exist, were they advancing towards a new ice age or reatreating from the last. As temperature increases Ice melts faster conversely as temperature decreases.... ICE MELTS MORE SLOWLY but it still melts. Don't buy the hype. We do not have enough complete knowledge about the history of the planet to confirm anything.
Global Warming as its known through the media hype weve seen for the last ten to 15 years is a hypothesis which suits the governments who sponsor IPCC etc therefore that's all you'll hear. The media, like the sheep they are, will take any spoon fed nonsense they can get and hype it out of all proportion .. it depends whether you believe all the rubbish they write as the holy word it'self.
You know what they say, with the right PR man, a spin doctor and a tame newspaper, Moses would have had a whole testament in the bible....0 -
cjw wrote:Now on to solar activity....
This is solar activity, looks a lot like climate change graphs doesn't it?
I wonder if this is what could be predominately driving the changes in temperature. Note especially the increases exactly when industrialisation starts in 1900s.
To Porgy, the point I make is that you can't subtract solar activity and be left with human causes. The solar activity IS the main cause and the human bit makes almost no difference.
These papers are for another day however.
Ok. All you have to do now is provide some evidence to back up your hypothesis. Some peer reviewed papers would be a good start.0 -
You haven't explained why the models are wrong, you've just made an unsubstantiated claim. Care to try and substantiate it?Slapshot wrote:
To my mind when you create a model however complex or simplistic, you use baseline data to verify that your model is truly representative of what you are representing. The AGW Architects, created a model then threw out all the data that did not fit what they wanted to see, therefore no accurate baseline to take representative model runs from. If you start with any incomplete dataset errors grow exponentially.This is the model that they continue to use as a basis of HC1,2, 3.Porgy wrote:some questions:
Can you explain how these models are wrong - I have some modelling experience - and I can't say I understand in which way climate models are being used differently than any other sort of model.Slapshot wrote:Why can they keep spinning the yarn about the execellence of these models when they are fundamentally wrong in the way they were created, data creates the model not the other way about?0 -
A nice bit of C&P there but the paper you refer to is, erm, how to put this tactfully, cack:Slapshot wrote:Ernst George Beck recently reviewed these early measurements combining the results from several studies and his paper titled “180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” was published in Energy & Environment, 2007, Volume 18, Number 2.
This paper concluded actual measured atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher than current levels in the recent past. The high level maxima’s occurred around 1825, 1857 and 1942. The carbon dioxide levels in 1942 exceeded 400 ppm.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is neither unusual nor abnormal but fits well within the range of measured levels during the 19th and 20th centuries.“
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... he-future/
Any rebuttal to these points or counter-argument setting out why you think the Beck paper is scientifically valid?The list of arguments against such variability in the carbon cycle is too long even for a post on RC but here are a few of the main ones:
The fluxes necessary to produce such variations are just unbelievably huge. Modern fossil fuel emissions are about 7.5GT (Giga Tons) Carbon per year which would correspond to about 3.5ppm increase per year (except that about half is absorbed by natural sinks in the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere). Beck’s supposed 150ppm source/sink in a decade corresponds therefore to a CO2 production/absorption about ten times stronger than the entire global industrial production of 2007 (putting aside for the moment additional complications since such CO2 levels had to be equilibrated at least partly with the ocean and the real CO2 source must even be larger).
Such huge biospheric fluxes would leave an enormous 13C signal in the atmosphere. Nothing remotely like that is observed in tree ring cellulose data.
Beck makes an association of some of the alleged huge CO2 peaks with volcanic eruptions. The Mauna Loa CO2 record started by Charles Keeling 1955 (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphi ... rudc04.pdf ) however doesn’t show much variability associated with the big eruptions of El Chichon, Agung or Pinatubo. (Readers should know however that on much longer, geologic, timescales, CO2 levels are heavily influenced by volcanic and tectonic activity, but that is not important on the interannual (or even centennial) timescale).
The paper suggests that the CO2 peak in the 1940 is forced by the first temperature rise in the 20th century. That would make 150ppm due to a temperature shift of 0.4°C. What happened then with the next rise from the 1970s to today? The observed about 0.5°C rise corresponded to “only” 70ppm always assuming that fossil fuel combustion does not leave any remains in the atmosphere….
And most importantly, we know from ice core analysis the CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial to modern times. The results of three different Antarctic cores broadly confirm the picture of an accelerating rise of CO2 above levels of natural variability over the last 650.000 years.
Or are you happy to accept any so called 'peer reviewed' paper that hits teh interwebz that suports your position, without submitting it to critical scrutiny?0 -
There are a couple of websites with an searchable database of the Climategate e-mails.
This e-mail shows quite clearly, that the CRU were actively fiddling the historic data.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1016&filename=1254108338.txt
"So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). "Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
What's the point of rebuttal. I could argue a million points which you could counter argue, I could substantiate anything you choose and you would take great pleasure in undermining them with some other piece. The debate was fun while it lasted but I can get enough of that in my working life I don't need the BS in a cycling forum.
The "Beck" piece, quoted from the paper I have at home, I don't cut and paste if I don't have to. It's "cack" depending on your perspective, it's cack depending on whether you want to slavishly follow the flock and believe in AGW.
CC models are wrong because they concentrate on CO2, CO2 and it's alleged threat is one of the greatest ruses the world has ever seen. The climate has a much more important regulator, Water, but that's more difficult to sell than the CO2 ruse. Water is THE thermo regulator in the atmosphere not CO2.
...and just out of interest were you aware that the most recent finding from deep level ice cores dating back hundreds of thousands of years consistently tell us that Increases in global temperature LEAD to increases in global CO2 concentrations. (and yeah thats a partial quote from a Stephen Wilde article)
If and when that's verified big two fingers to IPCC, AGW and 20 years BS and media hype. How will the government sell us their green taxes then?? IPCC are not all a fluster about UEA for nothing....0 -
Amen to that SLAPSHOT.
Dave0 -
No-one's forcing you to read a thread that's in the non cycling specific part of the site. Don't like it, don't read it.Slapshot wrote:... The debate was fun while it lasted but I can get enough of that in my working life I don't need the BS in a cycling forum. ...
Sorted! :roll:A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
Crapaud wrote:
No-one's forcing you to read a thread that's in the non cycling specific part of the site. Don't like it, don't read it.Slapshot wrote:... The debate was fun while it lasted but I can get enough of that in my working life I don't need the BS in a cycling forum. ...
Sorted! :roll:
Absolutely spot on......byee0 -
Debate, argument, science.Slapshot wrote:What's the point of rebuttal.
That's how science works, show me your best evidence and I'll try and disprove it. If it holds up then it becomes a piece of the evidence jigsaw that will help sustain a hypothesis. If you don't want to play the big boy's games then don't but you can't change the rules to suit you.Slapshot wrote:I could argue a million points which you could counter argue, I could substantiate anything you choose and you would take great pleasure in undermining them with some other piece.
Wrong. It's cack because it can be demonstrated to be cack.Slapshot wrote:The "Beck" piece, quoted from the paper I have at home, I don't cut and paste if I don't have to. It's "cack" depending on your perspective, it's cack depending on whether you want to slavishly follow the flock and believe in AGW.
Evidence?Slapshot wrote:CC models are wrong because they concentrate on CO2, CO2 and it's alleged threat is one of the greatest ruses the world has ever seen. The climate has a much more important regulator, Water, but that's more difficult to sell than the CO2 ruse. Water is THE thermo regulator in the atmosphere not CO2.
...and just out of interest were you aware that the most recent finding from deep level ice cores dating back hundreds of thousands of years consistently tell us that Increases in global temperature LEAD to increases in global CO2 concentrations. (and yeah thats a partial quote from a Stephen Wilde article)
If and when that's verified big two fingers to IPCC, AGW and 20 years BS and media hype. How will the government sell us their green taxes then?? IPCC are not all a fluster about UEA for nothing....0 -
Quick repeat performance then.... No change in rules Seanos, just a change in attitude, I can't be ar$ed fighting on a website I look at to relax. I don't have the time or inclination to drag my way through these documents to prove someone wrong. The evidence is out there look for yourself if you're so keen to read it. btw, have you read the most recent IPCC report.
Try Climaterealists.com as a starter for ten, than follow that up with the UAE email chains. It's all there but remember it won't say what you expect or want it to say!!0 -
Slapshot - I've enjoyed reading your posts on this thread, taking on the Non Climate Change Deniers "There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world, t'would be a pity to damage yours."0
-
But quite happy to make lots of unsubstantiated claims with out any evidence. That bit's really easy. Actually understanding the science and backing up what you're saying with good evidence instead of flaky research isn't, is it?Slapshot wrote:I don't have the time or inclination to drag my way through these documents to prove someone wrong.
This is quite simple. There's plenty of good peer reviewed scientific evidence to support AGW. You can either:Slapshot wrote:The evidence is out there look for yourself if you're so keen to read it. btw, have you read the most recent IPCC report. Try Climaterealists.com as a starter for ten
a) Critique the research
b) Highlight some research that disproves AGW
If you don't want to do either then I can only assume you can't. So why don't you prove me wrong - show us your very best evidence.0 -
My glacier link didn't work:
This should:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114125034/abstract0 -
Slapshot wrote:The evidence is out there look for yourself if you're so keen to read it. !
+1
A number of us have ponted out inconsistencies and issues with the ACW hypothesis. I posted about solar activity and then you say - "prove it". I can't be bothered to post any more. If you are interested simply google "goddard climate change solar activity NASA" and you will find what NASA are saying when they changed their oppinion that solar activity was not a contributor to their new stance that it is a major contributor.
I am not going to feed it to you :roll: If you're interested look it up.0 -
cjw wrote:Slapshot wrote:The evidence is out there look for yourself if you're so keen to read it. !
+1
A number of us have ponted out inconsistencies and issues with the ACW hypothesis. I posted about solar activity and then you say - "prove it". I can't be bothered to post any more. If you are interested simply google "climate change solar activity NASA" and you will find what NASA are saying when they changed their oppinion that solar activity was not a contributor to their new stance that it is a major contributor.
I am not going to feed it to you :roll: If you're interested look it up.
I've posted my evidence, and my reasoning. What is yours?
We have higher temperatures at ground level (which you say is caused by solar activity)
Fair enough, but then why is the stratosphere cooling:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2006&month=ann
I would say that the reason is because the mainly air is heated by convection from the ground, which is heated directly by solar radiation. Visible light is absorbed by the ground, which heats up and (because it isn't as hot as the Sun) re-radiates in the Infra Red.
Because of its temperature, the Sun's peak energy output is in the visible spectrum. Greenhouse gases are transparent to this, but not to Infra red, so they keep more of the re-radiated heat in the atmosphere, keeping the planet warmer.
What has this to do with stratospheric cooling?
These greenhouse gases mainly sit in the lower atmosphere. The stratosphere is above these gases, so a cooling is what you would expect if the stratosphere was getting less Infra Red radiation from the ground.
This could be because the sun has got cooler, but no- we are told that the lower atmosphere is heating because the sun is getting warmer.
I think it is receiving less infra red from the ground because this is being blocked by a stronger greenhouse effect below the stratosphere, like an extra pane of glass inside a greenhouse. Between the panes the temperature would be lower than if the inner pane didn't exist.0 -
I haven't read through all the pages of posts, but here's my thoughts.
The Earth's climate has changed throughout its history, from hot to cold and back again. Even if all the oil & gas we've been burning over the last 100 or so years isn't contributing to climate change, it doesn't mean we should be burning it. We we need to change the way we think about using those resources.
If there's an alternative to using these resources, we should use them. Living closer to work, using the car less, cycling more, better insulation for homes, solar panels and more local renewable ways of generating power. I'd love to get solar panels on the roof to be less reliant on the national grid and cut down the days I need to be in the office.
Dunedin0 -
You posted a graph but no evidence for your hypothesis. 'Correlation does not equal causation', as real scientists say.cjw wrote:A number of us have ponted out inconsistencies and issues with the ACW hypothesis. I posted about solar activity and then you say - "prove it". I can't be bothered to post any more.
Very convenient. Why do you all decide to take your ball home when you are challenged? If you have a point to make then link to the sources - preferably some good peer reviewed science.cjw wrote:If you are interested simply google "goddard climate change solar activity NASA" and you will find what NASA are saying when they changed their oppinion that solar activity was not a contributor to their new stance that it is a major contributor.
I am not going to feed it to you :roll: If you're interested look it up.0 -
I did and I got this:cjw wrote:If you are interested simply google "goddard climate change solar activity NASA"
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... ility.html
Can you please explain where I can find "what NASA are saying when they changed their oppinion that solar activity was not a contributor to their new stance that it is a major contributor."
To be honest I'm not quite sure what you are saying but I'm pretty positive that whatever it is it's not in the Nasa article. (It's an article btw, not a 'research report' as the ever dependable wattsupwiththat would have it).0
