• Dutch agency admits mistake in UN climate report
    73 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ridge;23136580]How about where global temperatures reached a record high in medieval UK, which, if I remember correctly, was a little over 100 years before the industrial revolution. Or how global temps have been on the decline since 2005?[/QUOTE] Except the UK isn't the entire world, and there's lackluster evidence for the MWP being a global phenomenon.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23136522]Yeah, it's just [I]one[/I] of the forcing agents. (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report)[/QUOTE] Well, If you think of it, almost anything altering albedo, bond events, feed back or radiative balance could change global temps. For all we know, corn fields could be the cause, after all the dates do correlate...
[QUOTE=North;23136658]They've been in decline since 1998. And temperature cycles in the UK are fascinating. We've been through periods of immense heat and cold in the UK over the last millennia. None of which have been affected by man. Read between the lines. Milankovitch cycles have an effect on the climate whether you like it or not.[/QUOTE] Yes, apparently they do, but this makes GW not anthropogenic... how? Mwhatever cycles seem to affect massively overarching periods of climate change, not the rapid change we've seen from the introduction of human elements
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23136709]Well, If you think of it, almost anything altering albedo, bond events, feed back or radiative balance could change global temps. For all we know, corn fields could be the cause, after all the date do correlate...[/QUOTE] Except there's math behind that, do you see how they calculated out the amount of forcing for each thing? Corn fields are actually factored into the "Land Use" category, by the way.
[QUOTE=North;23136480]Bring on the ad-hominem. [/QUOTE] Ad Hominem means attacking the character instead of the argument. You don't have an argument for me to attack, and I didn't attack you personally. By the way, citing conservative propaganda media doesn't count as an argument
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23136741]Ad Hominem means attacking the character instead of the argument. You don't have an argument for me to attack, and I didn't attack you personally. By the way, citing conservative propaganda media doesn't count as an argument[/QUOTE] Additionally, attacking the argument, and then saying you're an idiot because of your shoddy logical gaps and bad reasoning isn't an ad-hominem, either, it's just an insult.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23136705]Except the UK isn't the entire world, and there's lackluster evidence for the MWP being a global phenomenon.[/QUOTE] Except the UK was one of the few countries at the time playing with that crazy phenomena known as SCIENCE
[QUOTE=Ridge;23136826]Except the UK was one of the few countries at the time playing with that crazy phenomena known as SCIENCE[/QUOTE] What does this have to do with anything.
[QUOTE=Ridge;23136580]How about where global temperatures reached a record high in medieval UK, which, if I remember correctly, was a little over 100 years before the industrial revolution. Or how global temps have been on the decline since 2005?[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU[/media] [U][/U][URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU"][/URL]
Global Warming does not exist. It's a hoax, and nothing more.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23135590]Yep, 0.00000002 percent of climatic history is a lot. But tell me, where are the supposed thousand of scientists that conclude global warming is man made?[/QUOTE] Here they are: [url]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686[/url] [quote]IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by [b]analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9)[/b]. The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. [b]Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.[/b][/quote] And here they are again! [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change[/url] [quote]National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1] [b]No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007.[/b][/quote] And again! [img]http://leisureguy.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/climate_consensus_550_3.gif[/img] [editline]05:33PM[/editline] And Scorpius, I thought we talked about this I am disappointed in you
[QUOTE=Taishu;23145448][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU[/media] [U][/U][URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU"][/URL][/QUOTE] "Deniers" :hurr: Remember kids, disagreeing with a small part of the story makes you deny the entire thing.
[QUOTE=Baldr;23153296]"Deniers" :hurr: Remember kids, disagreeing with a small part of the story makes you deny the entire thing.[/QUOTE] Thinking you know more about climatology than climatologists who spend years learning the field because you read some internet blogs and saw the Manbearpig episode of South Park is pretty silly regardless
You can either believe- A worldwide scientific consensus Or Climate sceptic groups that get millions poured into them by the oil companies.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.