by Gill 221 Replies latest jw friends
Gill says
You may call that scepticism but one thing I know or you'd prefer me to say 'believe' as I won't provide a graph and facts and figures for this, is that the Earth's temperature is not getting warmer whatever little number 'they' may come up with.
Ok on the same basis what is your position on oceanic pH?
Gill says
All the global warming fanatics cannot deny one thing, that the story has already changed from 'Runaway Global Warming' scares, to 'Climate Change' scares.
A study of the facts reveals this to be complete fabrication designed to distract from the reality of whats happening.
Gilbert Plass' 1956 - 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'
Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'.
The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'.
The only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', was Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a 2002 memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:
It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.
“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
'Global warming' and 'climate change' are two separate terms with distinct definitions, and have been used accordingly by the scientific community for 40 years or so. The media, politicians and the general public may use and and abuse the terms interchangably, but that doesn't change the facts.
Unfortunately the facts I have just presented will do little to change your opinion.
I've come in late into this discussion and haven't had time to peruse the thread but I'll throw my two cents in. The following is my first article on Global Warming for www.skpeticalscience.com and it debunks the 'Global Cooling' issue.
I won't be available for another 2 hours but feel free to make comments.
Villabolo.
A common claim, made by those who deny man made global warming, is that the Earth has been cooling recently. 1998 was the first year claimed by 'skeptics' for "Global Cooling". Then 1995 followed by 2002. 'Skeptics' have also emphasized the year 2007-2008 and most recently the last half of 2010.
NASA and climate scientists throughout the world have said, however, that the years starting since 1998 have been the hottest in all recorded temperature history. Do these claims sound confusing and contradictory? Has the Earth been cooling, lately?
To find out whether there is actually a "cooling trend" it is important to consider all of these claims as a whole, since they follow the same pattern. In making these claims, 'skeptics' take short periods of time, usually about 10 years or less, out of context ("Cherry picked.") from 30 years of evidence; the minimum needed to make a valid judgment.
'Skeptics' also take selected areas of the world where cold records for the recent past are being set while ignoring other areas where all time heat records are being set.
The temperature chart below is based on information acquired from NASA heat sensing satellites. It covers a 30 year period from 1979 to the present. The red curve indicates the average temperature throughout the entire Earth.
The red line represents the average temperature. The top of the curves are warmer years caused by El Niño; a weather phenomenon where the Pacific Ocean gives out heat thus warming the Earth. The bottoms of the curves are usually La Niña years which cool the Earth. Volcanic eruptions, like Mount Pinatubo in 1991 will also cool the Earth so they are not counted. Although they are effected by Global Warming, El Niños and La Niñas occur whether or not there is Global Warming.
Figure 1: University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) temperature chart from January 1979 to November 2010. This chart is shown with no trend lines so the viewer may make his own judgment.
Below is the same temperature chart, showing how 'skeptics', manipulate the data to give the impression of 'Global Cooling'. First they choose the warmest most recent year they can find. Then, in this case, they exclude 20 years of previous temperature records. Next they draw a line from the warmest year (The high peak.) to the lowest La Niña they can find. In doing this they falsely give the impression that an ordinary La Niña is actually a cooling trend.
Figure 2: Illustration of how 'skeptics' distort the evidence.
What do the past 30 years of temperature data really show? Below is the answer.
Figure 3:Trend lines showing the sudden jump in temperatures in the 1995 La Niña (Green lines) and the 1998 (Pink lines) El Niño events. Brown line indicates overall increase in temperatures.
The chart above clearly shows that temperatures have gone up. They are, however, not going up in a steady curve as most people would expect. They are, instead, rising in a stepwise fashion. That means they can remain steady for a few years and, all of a sudden, jump up; then remain steady and soon jump up again.
When temperatures for the warm El Niño years (Pink lines) during 1980-1995 are compared to 1998-2010, there is a sudden increase of at least 0.2 o Centigrade (0.36 o Fahrenheit). Temperatures also jumped up by about 0.15C o (0.27F o ) between the cool La Niña years (Green lines) of 1979-1989 and those of 1996-2008 (the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 lowered the Earth's temperatures in the midst of an El Niño cycle). The overall trend from 1979 through November 2010 (Brown line) shows an unmistakable rise.
While these increases do not sound like much they are more than enough to disrupt weather systems and cause severe damage to crops and human populations.
In spite of these facts, 'skeptics' simply keep changing their dates for 'Global Cooling'.
Gill says
This 'fact' that people are paid to say this, means that I personally cannot believe that whatever they say is without a personal agenda and therefore I will not trust them.
How do you view new medical discoveries?
For example who were the conspirators - the tobacco companies denying their product caused cancer or the scientists saying it did?
The scientific method appears to have served humanity well over the past few centuries - is there an alternative model you suggest for making progress?
Gill says
It will be interesting to come back to this story in 2 - 5 years time, if it is possible and compare notes on how the 'story' is changing.
More than two years ago you started this thread predicting an imminent Ice Age, and now you need a little more time for your prediction to come true :-)
Two years ago on this thread I commented that climate change theory predicts more extreme weather events of all kinds. It seems the insurance industry who have a vested financial interest in monitoring these things agree that 2010 was one of the worst years on record for weather related events. Munich Re said:
Altogether, a total of 950 natural catastrophes were recorded last year, nine-tenths of which were weather-related events like storms and floods. This total makes 2010 the year with the second-highest number of natural catastrophes since 1980, markedly exceeding the annual average for the last ten years (785 events per year). The overall losses amounted to around US$ 130bn, of which approximately US$ 37bn was insured. This puts 2010 among the six most loss-intensive years for the insurance industry since 1980. The level of overall losses was slightly above the high average of the past ten years.
Gill says
You may call that scepticism but one thing I know or you'd prefer me to say 'believe' as I won't provide a graph and facts and figures for this, is that the Earth's temperature is not getting warmer whatever little number 'they' may come up with.
I'm fascinated to know how you will know when the Earth is entering an Ice Age, given you refuse to accept the evidence that its currently in a long term warming trend. Is there some science you do accept, or are you generally anti-science?
Though you might not like the web site this came from, you might not mind so much the peer reviewed article and the magazine it came from.
However, cold is hot and hot is cold.
As said before, you may believe that Gill is Stupid, but Gill can see that the Emperor has NO Clothes!
Besty, the Ice Age HAS Begun!
Get over it!
Besty, the Ice Age HAS Begun! Get over it!
How do you know? Did it happen 'invisibly'?
Gill says:
Though you might not like the web site this came from, you might not mind so much the peer reviewed article and the magazine it came from.
I question whether this paper was even proof read (plenty of spelling and grammar mistakes) never mind peer reviwed. I also question the publisher credentials - http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463148a.html - let me know what you think about the numerous controversies and suspect dealings connected with this publisher.
I'd also like to know if you agree with the author that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas?
Further I'd like to know why you find scientific certainty with this author who represents a tiny minority view?
Anyways, when you get a minute maybe you will respond to some of the questions I posed to you on the previous page, rather than pasting new stuff from the blogosphere. Lets try and keep it a discussion and not a cut and paste war.
I've come in late into this discussion and haven't had time to peruse the thread but I'll throw my two cents in. The following is my first article on Global Warming for www.skpeticalscience.com and it debunks the 'Global Cooling' issue.
That site is run by Evangelical Christians and Mormon cultists.
A physicist by training, John Cook is an evangelical Christian who runs the website skepticalscience.com, which seeks to debunk climate change deniers’ arguments. Barry Bickmore is a Mormon, a professor of geochemistry at Brigham Young University and the blogger behind Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah, where he recently rebuked Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) for his climate views and posted editorials mentioning his Republican affiliation.
