Posted: Jul 15, 2010 1:14 am
Leonidas wrote:Let's face it I could link to articles to back up what I say but:
1. Most of them are opinion pieces, just like the opinion pieces of so many who accept the case for man-made Global Warming.
Fortunately the non-denialist side of the debate has facts and science as well.
Sea levels are rising as a global average - Fact
Sea Ice volumes in the arctic are falling as an average - Fact
Average sea temperature are rising - Fact
Average land temperatures are rising - Fact.
As for the "higher temperatures because stations are near air conditioners", guess what? The entire rest of the world does not have the US love of air-con. The figures from the rest of the world also show comparable temperature rises. And studies in the US that either compensated for poor siting or excluded such sites confirmed that yes, temperatures are indeed rising.
Leonidas wrote:2. The usual response to any scientific piece which does not accept man-made global warming is (not from everybody but it is very common) an ad-hominem attack on the scientist on the grounds of 'big oil' etc etc.
3. 'Peer-reviewed' and 'consensus' generally come up at this point.
4. Nobody changes their view.
Yes 'peer-reviewed' does come up because its the method that stops people pulling results out of thin air or using shoddy methodologies. Its what helps differentiate between conclusions that can be verified and making stuff up.
Credible science overwhelmingly states: Global Warming is real, its happening more rapidly than at any previous time before we industrialised, and humanity is contributing to it.
Leonidas wrote:I am not going to post any links.
Well that's because you have no links to credible data.
Leonidas wrote:I have read pieces that dispute that CO2 has any more than a minor effect on world temperature,
Thats piece was lying then, even minor changes in C02 production disrupts the equilibrium between the amount that is produced and the amount that can be removed by natural processes.
Leonidas wrote:that point out that increased CO2 is a consequence of warming not a cause of it
More lies by the authors then, CO2 is a cause of warming, that is an undeniable fact of physics. The release of sequestered CO2 from some areas (i.e. due to melting permafrost) is a result of warming that ultimately causes more warming up to a certain point, its a feedback effect.
Leonidas wrote:and that warming and cooling coincide with output from the sun including its impact on cloud formation. I have also read pieces that say that even if every single factory on the planet was shut down for decades it would have only a trivial effect on world temperature.
It is true that Solar cycles do have an effect on temperatures, what the lying sacks of excrement that authored these articles obviously neglected to include is that at the point in the cycle we are currently at energy levels from the sun are falling so we should be seeing cooling, instead we are seeing warming. Gee I guess some other factor than the sun might be involved.
And more lies, If every single factory on the planet was shut down it would reduce human C02 output by about 25%, that would definitely have an effect on the rate of change of global temperature but not stop warming as we would still be producing enough CO2 to tip the balance between overall production and overall removal. The majority of C02 is produced by power generation and cars/trucks.
Leonidas wrote:What is the truth? The truth is that predictions of next weeks weather are very uncertain and next year's climate even more so. Climate and Weather predictions more than a few days ahead have a dreadful record of accuracy. All some scientists and weather men seem to do is take a nice looking graph and extend it off into the future as if a trend, any trend, will continue for ever.
The truth is that as an average trend the world has been warming for many, many decades and it will continue to warm unless we cut our contribution to global CO2 production.
No one makes climate predictions a week ahead, weather is a localised chaotic system whereas climate is an averaged trend over huge areas. You obviously are unaware of the difference between the 2.
Leonidas wrote:And then there is the alarmist fringe: We are all doomed, we will all be flooded many feet deep, the sky is falling, all disasters are due to global warming and it is going to get worse. This is what I call tabloid science. It smells strongly and it's getting smellier.
Then read the actual fucking science, anyway you seem happy to rely in tabloid denialism so you have no grounds to criticise tabloid alarmism.