Quote:
Originally Posted by -JD-
Consensus is how science works. Peer reviewed studies.
I was hoping for some actual information or data. As far as I've read temperatures are rising. Here's a great graph showing ocean temperatures (Considered a more accurate source of data due to their 'thermal mass')
-SNIP-
You suggest this is all 'politically motivated'. What is the motivation? evidence?
Again, if you are going to assume political motivation without naming a motive isn't it also reasonable to assume that the oil and gas industry, one of the wealthiest and most powerful groups in the world, could have some interest in the outcome of this debate and perhaps they are the ones motivating the few reports that disagree with the scientific consensus. Personally I find it more likely that a multi billion dollar industry is trying to protect itself than I do that there is some sort of world wide conspiracy involving many of the worlds governments and the majority of the respected scientific community. Conspiring because of some unknown motive.
|
@
-JD-
first, let's get a few things straight:
1. I believe that the climate changes. Only an idiot would think otherwise.
2. I believe that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere.
3. I still am neither a skeptic nor a warmist, even after a lot of research.
My premise:
The global warming "scare" and debate has morphed into climate change throughout the years. I agree with that, no problem.
The following is what I disagree with:
97% of scientists have reached a consensus the the earth is getting hotter and it is due to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. Severe weather is the same as it has always been. Climate change has not made it worse or better.[/B]These are my main points of contention!
Now, a definition: Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time.
The climate is not the ocean. The ocean temps can influence the climate but it is not the climate. So, posting ocean temp data is great and all but it means nothing. This is about climate. We can debate ocean temps later as that is another whole can of worms.
Temperatures have risen but have stabilized to flat for the past 17 1/2 years.
Here is all the temperature plots from surface and satellites and the trends:
While CO2 has continued to increase.
If you go back several hundred thousand years you can see that temperatures actually rise BEFORE CO2 increases, not the other way around. I don't have a graph of that but if you want one I can get it for you.
So, you can see from the graphs that temperature rise does not follow CO2 rise in the last two decades.
Now, about the climate models. The warmists say temps are going to increase. They have built a lot of very complex models. The problem is they have built the models to fit the past and right now they are not fitting the current real observations:
The green and blue are recorded observations. The black line is the mean of the models. As you can see there are only a few models that even come close. That's a lot of wrong models! Unfortunately these models are the only thing we have to predict the future and so far they are wrong.
Lastly, severe weather has increased due to climate change. Here are some facts:
1. Hurricanes are not increasing in number.
2. Tornadoes are also at historically low levels.
3. Acres burned in North America from lightning strikes (severe thunderstorms) are at historically low levels.
Here is a global chart on tropical storms and hurricanes:
That's all for now.
There are websites out there that have good data but biased analysis. This happens on both sides of the argument. I would equate the "Skeptical Science" website as MSNBC and a website like "Real Science" as Rush Limbaugh. The real truth lies somewhere in the middle.
We both know that statistics can be presented to favor any argument and that's been my problem. Neither side has irrefutable proof. That's why I go to the source whenever possible. Sure, your side claims "consensus" which only means agreement. Here in this post I have shown their models are wrong and their basis for argument, raising CO2 levels, is not valid for the past 17 years or so. So why are they still pushing so hard? I don't know. I do know they won't even debate the skeptics which I find it hard to believe. There are newspapers that won't even print any skeptic's argument! I would love to hear an actual debate from both sides.
The past 17 years could be nothing more than a "pause" before temperatures start to climb again. The warmists could be right. Unfortunately they did not predict this plateau of temperature and the scare tactics they use to inform the masses really pisses me off.
Personally I think the climate is way too complex for us to understand yet. Sunspots, La Nina and El Nino currents and many other things beyond our control and understanding all add up to natural variability, which is what controls the climate. I totally agree we should should be good citizens and watch what we put into the air, ground and sea. But I also think the Warmists should tone it down and continue to work with the other side to get their models and reasons for change better.
