Global Warming In Thailand

[AleG]

I know there are many uncertainties with the global warming theory, personally I don't buy the doomsday scenarios with rapid sea rising, murderous weather and uninhabitable conditions; but I haven't seen any compelling evidence as to what else is causing temperatures to rise icecaps and glaciers to melt. The only thing I have seen so far is people taking potshots at the theory but not proposing any solid alternative.

That is because when people point out the clearly obvious relationship between solar activity and temperature increase, which is clearly observable in graphs going back hundreds of years, people like you still want something else to be the cause. It just has to be the SUV's, ooooh they are sooo evil, I hate them grrrr. So sad

Of course if the Sun increases it's output the temperature on Earth should increase too, but it's not what it's going on now, for the last thirty years the Sun radiation output has actually decreased slightly

I don't know what you see in those graphs, what I see is three periods of increased solar activity, the last being between 98 and 06 which corresponds pretty well with the rise in Global warming hysteria, and also explains why we have been cooling for the last three years. The sun is at a very low state of activity right now and solar scientists are scrambling to predict the beginning of the next cycle.

A thirty year graph showing three peaks and starting at the height of one of them and ending in a trough is also likely to show a downward trend. These charts shows signs of an attempt to cherry pick data, but it fails to provide anything compelling.

If you really want to see the relationship between solar activity and temperature you have to go back at least a century. Have a look here.

Of course there are peaks and throughs, it follows the Sun's 11 year activity cycle, the graph starts in a peak, but the average it's still not increasing over the period. It's very obvious that the peaks are sucesively lower and the throughs almost the same.

As for your link what it shows is an increase of Sun spot activity, you may notice that it has declined since the 1950s but still globa temperatures have increased since then. The first graph though shows a correlation between solar activity and temperature but that graph has been shown to have errors (PDF), the data used was good only until 1975, the last 4 data points that show in the old graph an increase in radiation were wrong, it has remained more or less constant since then, yet global temperatures have increased abruptly over the same time period, see Fig. 2.

[canuckamuck]

AleG what you are proposing is that up until 1975, temperature and solar activity had tracked together perfectly well, going back centuries. Then suddenly the relationship is no longer valid? How much has the temperature gone up in the last 25 Years, maybe 0.1 C.

How are you convinced that this minor temperature variation is somehow proof the pattern is broken. Even your own chart shows solar activity being high early in the 21st century. Wouldn't that correspond with a recent temperature rise?

[hhgz]

"Golabal Warming In Thailand, Does it exist?"

Yes, yes why it's referred to as GLOBAL warming. Otherwise, I'd guess that it'd be called "global-except-for-Thailand".

[Garry9999]

"Golabal Warming In Thailand, Does it exist?"

Yes, yes why it's referred to as GLOBAL warming. Otherwise, I'd guess that it'd be called "global-except-for-Thailand".

Oh really, hadn't thought of that!

Actually it appears it's now called Global climate change, because some places actually seem to be cooling (this has been pointed out to me on this thread aready).

I seems the term, Global Warming, was leaving the multi-billion dollar Global Warming industry a little red faced, so they changed the term to Global climate change.

To the responses they say "if you want to know if Thailand is getting hotter just ask older Thai people and they will tell it was cooler years ago", I say, selective memory, we all prefer to remember what gave us pleasure rather than what made us unconfortable. If you don't believe me, check the temperature records for yourself.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Garry9999

[rafval]

yes, its clearly a conspiracy, al gore is paying 95% of the worlds climate scientists to make things up so he can make more money, there can be no other explanation, I can only thank god that at least the oil and coal industry is paying the other 5% to tell us all the truth

Edited June 23, 2009 by rafval

[JR Texas]

yes, its clearly a conspiracy, al gore is paying 95% of the worlds climate scientists to make things up so he can make more money, there can be no other explanation, I can only thank god that at least the oil and coal industry is paying the other 5% to tell us all the truth

Good one..........surely it is true........he made that money from getting that pesky Nobel Peace Prize and now is spending it all to make climate scientists mess with their data..........yes, makes sense. Really, it is likely that some of the skeptics actually believe this, even though we are joking.

About the changes from global warming to climate change........it is because global warming is a fact.........it is also because the problem is very complex, involving the entire global climate........thus, climate change.

About the sun as the culprit (taken from the sites I posted earlier):

According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.

There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion. See this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperature, and variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.

For those who want to reason with the skeptics using science, check this out:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

The scientific community is way past what is being discussed here........the issue is no longer global warming, it is how climate change will occur, where, when..........what will be the consequences (e.g.,social, economic, etc).

[canuckamuck]

Wow JR finally found something and put it up so we can see what he is talking about. Definite progress here.

It is nice to see that so called scientists are reconstructing the solar activity record to match their hypothesis. Are they using the same method as the IPCC where they eliminated major historical warm periods and gave all favorable data a heavier weighting then contradictory data? It worked really good for Al Gore's hockey stick graph, he got a Nobel and an Oscar for that total fabrication.

I didn't bother with the other link, it was just a pile of random arguments taken out of context to try to make anti ACC proponents sound foolish. The same can be done to any debate. Pointless waste of bandwidth (college geek humor I guess)

[AleG]

AleG what you are proposing is that up until 1975, temperature and solar activity had tracked together perfectly well, going back centuries. Then suddenly the relationship is no longer valid? How much has the temperature gone up in the last 25 Years, maybe 0.1 C.

How are you convinced that this minor temperature variation is somehow proof the pattern is broken. Even your own chart shows solar activity being high early in the 21st century. Wouldn't that correspond with a recent temperature rise?

It shows that there's something else driving temperatures up, besides increased solar activity. If you are heating water in the stove, if you remove the pot from the flame the temperature stops increasing, there's no inertia there to push it further up, just the same, if solar output decreases (or remains the same) that by itself can't be the cause of temperatures to keep raising, there must be some other factor at play that makes the Earth retain more energy than it radiates. The theory goes that would be due to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as science goes, if someone has a more compelling theory its free to peddle it and see if works better at explaining reality.

Canuckamuk, could you give a cite on those doctored reports from the IPCC?

[JR Texas]

Wow JR finally found something and put it up so we can see what he is talking about. Definite progress here.

It is nice to see that so called scientists are reconstructing the solar activity record to match their hypothesis. Are they using the same method as the IPCC where they eliminated major historical warm periods and gave all favorable data a heavier weighting then contradictory data? It worked really good for Al Gore's hockey stick graph, he got a Nobel and an Oscar for that total fabrication.

I didn't bother with the other link, it was just a pile of random arguments taken out of context to try to make anti ACC proponents sound foolish. The same can be done to any debate. Pointless waste of bandwidth (college geek humor I guess)

Wrong again..........this information has been around for some time. I did not just find it.

It is unbelievable that you think all of these scientists are manipulating data to prove a point of view. Is that possible? Anything is possible. Is it likely........absolutely not.

It is, however, likely that big oil would want to control the thoughts and minds of the public by paying pseudo-scientists to post misleading information on pseudo-scientific websites and forums.

Why would they want to do that? To create doubt when almost none exists..

Why? To prevent positive change/action......to keep the public in a self-exploitative frame of mind.

Why? To make more billions upon billions of dollars. Now that is actually very likely.

Given your statements, I thought you were not aware of what the actual data shows.

This is old news......the debate is over.....your side lost.....get used to it.

You are beating a dead horse.......you are also playing a dangerous game.

What if you are wrong?

[canuckamuck]

AleG what you are proposing is that up until 1975, temperature and solar activity had tracked together perfectly well, going back centuries. Then suddenly the relationship is no longer valid? How much has the temperature gone up in the last 25 Years, maybe 0.1 C.

How are you convinced that this minor temperature variation is somehow proof the pattern is broken. Even your own chart shows solar activity being high early in the 21st century. Wouldn't that correspond with a recent temperature rise?

It shows that there's something else driving temperatures up, besides increased solar activity. If you are heating water in the stove, if you remove the pot from the flame the temperature stops increasing, there's no inertia there to push it further up, just the same, if solar output decreases (or remains the same) that by itself can't be the cause of temperatures to keep raising, there must be some other factor at play that makes the Earth retain more energy than it radiates. The theory goes that would be due to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as science goes, if someone has a more compelling theory its free to peddle it and see if works better at explaining reality.

Canuckamuk, could you give a cite on those doctored reports from the IPCC?

The best information I got on the famous hockey stick graph was most clearly laid out in that video mortena posted earlier in this thread (here it is again). Being that it is a video, and a long one at that I imagine you don’t have time to watch it. But the evidence is laid out very clearly. The graph is not doctored, it is tailor made to produce a logarithmic increase in warming. They left out the medieval warm period and weighted some of the data 38 times heavier than data that went against the desired result.

If you Google hockey stick graph you find hundreds of thousands of references to it. Here is WIKI’s coverage of the issue.

No matter how you look at this issue, the last 50 years the temperature has increased very little, less than half a degree. During that time we have had several increases in solar activity, the last one ending just a few years ago. It is not like the pot was removed from the flame, that is a ridiculous statement. We are talking about insignificant changes, which up until recently were all quite easily atributed to solar activity. But according to JR's info, they are going to change the data, so that makes things a bit dodgy. But even if they do rewrite history, we still have the here and now, and this is what is happening today. Many glaciers have begun to grow again, Antarctic ice is at an all time high, There is more Arctic ice than was predicted. Even Kilimanjaro is getting its snow back. And the oceans haven't risen a bit in the last 50 years. In fact Antarctica has increased so much it is possible we will see a lowering of sea level. All of this hysteria is driven by some very bad politically driven science that has it's foundation in that hockey stick. The longer you wave this ACC flag, the dumber you are going to feel when this is all a funny thing we remember from the past, like disco boots and Bananarama.

[churchill]

How many more times. We have it on good authority. Thailand is too far from the poles to worry about melting ice.

Although I didn't believe it there seems to be some truth in the fact that thailand may be effected less by rising sea levels than countiries in Northern Europe and the US - Because of gravity .

http://www.european-waternews.com/news/id5...ising_Less.html

[ballpoint]

Wrong again..........this information has been around for some time. I did not just find it.

It is unbelievable that you think all of these scientists are manipulating data to prove a point of view. Is that possible? Anything is possible. Is it likely........absolutely not.

It is, however, likely that big oil would want to control the thoughts and minds of the public by paying pseudo-scientists to post misleading information on pseudo-scientific websites and forums.

Why would they want to do that? To create doubt when almost none exists..

Why? To prevent positive change/action......to keep the public in a self-exploitative frame of mind.

Why? To make more billions upon billions of dollars. Now that is actually very likely.

Given your statements, I thought you were not aware of what the actual data shows.

This is old news......the debate is over.....your side lost.....get used to it.

You are beating a dead horse.......you are also playing a dangerous game.

What if you are wrong?

Congratulations, you have just reduced this thread to the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nah nah, you lost, I'm not listening any more". If this is the level of scientific debate given by the global warming proponents then we've got nothing to worry about. It seems to me that the doubters are the ones providing much of the figures to support our arguments while the sheep blindly follow the global warming line. And as for your last line. What a classic cop out. Akin to saying "Yes, as you say, maybe if I stop sacrificing a virgin every day the sun will still come up. But what if you're wrong?"

[JR Texas]

Wrong again..........this information has been around for some time. I did not just find it.

It is unbelievable that you think all of these scientists are manipulating data to prove a point of view. Is that possible? Anything is possible. Is it likely........absolutely not.

It is, however, likely that big oil would want to control the thoughts and minds of the public by paying pseudo-scientists to post misleading information on pseudo-scientific websites and forums.

Why would they want to do that? To create doubt when almost none exists..

Why? To prevent positive change/action......to keep the public in a self-exploitative frame of mind.

Why? To make more billions upon billions of dollars. Now that is actually very likely.

Given your statements, I thought you were not aware of what the actual data shows.

This is old news......the debate is over.....your side lost.....get used to it.

You are beating a dead horse.......you are also playing a dangerous game.

What if you are wrong?

Congratulations, you have just reduced this thread to the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nah nah, you lost, I'm not listening any more". If this is the level of scientific debate given by the global warming proponents then we've got nothing to worry about. It seems to me that the doubters are the ones providing much of the figures to support our arguments while the sheep blindly follow the global warming line. And as for your last line. What a classic cop out. Akin to saying "Yes, as you say, maybe if I stop sacrificing a virgin every day the sun will still come up. But what if you're wrong?"

Truth hurts sometimes........what I said was true. What you said was nothing.

[jumnien]

Isn't it about time that humans realize that they are eating themselves to death. Obesity is rampant and spreading. This global warming delusion is a deadly distraction. It is time for denial to end.

[canuckamuck]

Isn't it about time that humans realize that they are eating themselves to death. Obesity is rampant and spreading. This global warming delusion is a deadly distraction. It is time for denial to end.

Well that explains localized warming and methane increases.

[Garry9999]

Wow JR finally found something and put it up so we can see what he is talking about. Definite progress here.

It is nice to see that so called scientists are reconstructing the solar activity record to match their hypothesis. Are they using the same method as the IPCC where they eliminated major historical warm periods and gave all favorable data a heavier weighting then contradictory data? It worked really good for Al Gore's hockey stick graph, he got a Nobel and an Oscar for that total fabrication.

I didn't bother with the other link, it was just a pile of random arguments taken out of context to try to make anti ACC proponents sound foolish. The same can be done to any debate. Pointless waste of bandwidth (college geek humor I guess)

Wrong again..........this information has been around for some time. I did not just find it.

It is unbelievable that you think all of these scientists are manipulating data to prove a point of view. Is that possible? Anything is possible. Is it likely........absolutely not.

It is, however, likely that big oil would want to control the thoughts and minds of the public by paying pseudo-scientists to post misleading information on pseudo-scientific websites and forums.

Why would they want to do that? To create doubt when almost none exists..

Why? To prevent positive change/action......to keep the public in a self-exploitative frame of mind.

Why? To make more billions upon billions of dollars. Now that is actually very likely.

Given your statements, I thought you were not aware of what the actual data shows.

This is old news......the debate is over.....your side lost.....get used to it.

You are beating a dead horse.......you are also playing a dangerous game.

What if you are wrong?

JR, I can not understand your blind faith in what you have heard about climate change. You are claiming victory when you haven't even put forth a reasonable arguement. Obviously you haven't bothered to watch or read any of the links posted here that are skeptical about climate change. canauckmuck, ballpoint, AleG etc, have all raised important points and provided information to backup their points raised. You, on the other hand have said the same thing over and over, "If so many people say it is true, then it must be true".

What if the skeptics are right?

The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.

Thomas Huxley

I've learn't a lot from this thread and it has increased my skepticism of, the religion that is global climate change further.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Garry9999

[AleG]

AleG what you are proposing is that up until 1975, temperature and solar activity had tracked together perfectly well, going back centuries. Then suddenly the relationship is no longer valid? How much has the temperature gone up in the last 25 Years, maybe 0.1 C.

How are you convinced that this minor temperature variation is somehow proof the pattern is broken. Even your own chart shows solar activity being high early in the 21st century. Wouldn't that correspond with a recent temperature rise?

It shows that there's something else driving temperatures up, besides increased solar activity. If you are heating water in the stove, if you remove the pot from the flame the temperature stops increasing, there's no inertia there to push it further up, just the same, if solar output decreases (or remains the same) that by itself can't be the cause of temperatures to keep raising, there must be some other factor at play that makes the Earth retain more energy than it radiates. The theory goes that would be due to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as science goes, if someone has a more compelling theory its free to peddle it and see if works better at explaining reality.

Canuckamuk, could you give a cite on those doctored reports from the IPCC?

The best information I got on the famous hockey stick graph was most clearly laid out in that video mortena posted earlier in this thread (here it is again). Being that it is a video, and a long one at that I imagine you don’t have time to watch it. But the evidence is laid out very clearly. The graph is not doctored, it is tailor made to produce a logarithmic increase in warming. They left out the medieval warm period and weighted some of the data 38 times heavier than data that went against the desired result.

If you Google hockey stick graph you find hundreds of thousands of references to it. Here is WIKI’s coverage of the issue.

No matter how you look at this issue, the last 50 years the temperature has increased very little, less than half a degree. During that time we have had several increases in solar activity, the last one ending just a few years ago. It is not like the pot was removed from the flame, that is a ridiculous statement. We are talking about insignificant changes, which up until recently were all quite easily atributed to solar activity. But according to JR's info, they are going to change the data, so that makes things a bit dodgy. But even if they do rewrite history, we still have the here and now, and this is what is happening today. Many glaciers have begun to grow again, Antarctic ice is at an all time high, There is more Arctic ice than was predicted. Even Kilimanjaro is getting its snow back. And the oceans haven't risen a bit in the last 50 years. In fact Antarctica has increased so much it is possible we will see a lowering of sea level. All of this hysteria is driven by some very bad politically driven science that has it's foundation in that hockey stick. The longer you wave this ACC flag, the dumber you are going to feel when this is all a funny thing we remember from the past, like disco boots and Bananarama.

The hockey stick graph *sigh*, the original was found to contain errors, it was corrected. Since then dozens of studies have yielded similar trends on the Earth's temperature record for the last few thousands of years, so even if you throw the infamous Hockey Stick graph out the window, the case still stands on solid evidence emanating from many independent studies.

[AleG]

And no, I don´t have time to go through that video, do you have a link to an article, publication or institution web page showing the studies that disprove global warming?

[canuckamuck]

Yeah, that sounds better, 'it contained errors and was corrected'. That is much easier to swallow then the data was manipulated to serve a political agenda. This is the governmental panel on climate change. You would think they would have the ability to collate data. But as it turns out many of them are not even scientists, and many of the scientists who were on the panel left in disgust of the agenda based tactics.

Do I have a website that disproves global warming? I thought most of the Climate gurus have dropped that label in favor of the bullet proof 'Climate Change'. Which proves itself right every five minutes as the weather changes. Wouldn't you know,I got caught in the rain today because of climate change. It was sunny and then the climate changed right before my eyes.

What you should be asking is if I have a website that shows that the best thing that could possibly happen is Global warming. If the temperature would come up a degree or two, like it did in the medieval warming. People in Northern climes could grow crops their ancestors used to grow, like grapes.

Canadians wouldn't have 8 bloody months of winter every year so they might get better at soccer and baseball. And tropical species could extend their range and we could save a lot of endangered critters. By the way when it did warm up in the past, there was no runaway warming effect where all life on Earth was threatened. But everybody is still terrified of that 0.5 Celsius increase we have had in the last hundred years. When in reality we have just recovered from an mini ice age, so the warming was a blessing.

I am sorry you can't watch the video, it is quite good. Show me a website that proofs that global warming is an actual threat to humanity and not a bunch of conjecture and breathless hype. And then I will find some fresh links for you. it is about time your side had some new evidence. I am tired of watching the same ice shelf collapse.

[JR Texas]

Yeah, that sounds better, 'it contained errors and was corrected'. That is much easier to swallow then the data was manipulated to serve a political agenda. This is the governmental panel on climate change. You would think they would have the ability to collate data. But as it turns out many of them are not even scientists, and many of the scientists who were on the panel left in disgust of the agenda based tactics.

Do I have a website that disproves global warming? I thought most of the Climate gurus have dropped that label in favor of the bullet proof 'Climate Change'. Which proves itself right every five minutes as the weather changes. Wouldn't you know,I got caught in the rain today because of climate change. It was sunny and then the climate changed right before my eyes.

What you should be asking is if I have a website that shows that the best thing that could possibly happen is Global warming. If the temperature would come up a degree or two, like it did in the medieval warming. People in Northern climes could grow crops their ancestors used to grow, like grapes.

Canadians wouldn't have 8 bloody months of winter every year so they might get better at soccer and baseball. And tropical species could extend their range and we could save a lot of endangered critters. By the way when it did warm up in the past, there was no runaway warming effect where all life on Earth was threatened. But everybody is still terrified of that 0.5 Celsius increase we have had in the last hundred years. When in reality we have just recovered from an mini ice age, so the warming was a blessing.

I am sorry you can't watch the video, it is quite good. Show me a website that proofs that global warming is an actual threat to humanity and not a bunch of conjecture and breathless hype. And then I will find some fresh links for you. it is about time your side had some new evidence. I am tired of watching the same ice shelf collapse.

The position of the skeptics is clear.......everything is a consipiracy.........all data are manipulated by scientists involved in the consipiracy.

Silly comment on climate change vs global warming.....global warming is too specific.........the problem is more complicated and scientists know it.......the entire climate is changing.......thus climate change.

In some cases the warming can lead to temporary cooling or even an ice-age like event.......Al Gore pointed that out but apparently the skeptics did not understand what he was saying when he talked about ocean currents, heat transfer, and Greenland melting.

Again, you put forth misleading information concerning the impact of warming........you leave out the vast number of negatives........deliberately misleading and people should understand this is a common tactic of skeptics (who really are not skeptics.......skeptics in science leave the door open to the possibility that they are wrong).

As you know, Al Gore presented a movie about it showing precisely what you are wanting to see.........and he did it in a simple way so that non-scientists can grasp it.

If skeptics are not going to respond using reason, there is no debate.

If skeptics can only respond by presenting misleading information, there is no debate.

f the response of skeptics to hard data that contradicts their views is to simply dismiss such data as part of a conspiracy, there is no debate.

In the scientific community, those types of responses mean one thing: your side lost.

The scientific community has moved beyond this "debate." It moved beyond it by trying to disprove global warming/climate change (that is what null hypotheses are all about) but could not do so (meaning the probability of global warming/climate change being real is overwhelming).

Again, what if you are wrong? I know what will happen if people who embrace my position on this are wrong. But what if you are wrong?

And why should be be gambling with something as significant as the atmosphere?

[jumnien]

Scientists have estimated that during the decade following Al Gore's crusade against global warming he gained approximately 15 - 20 kilos in body weight, predominantly insulating fat tissue. Just to clarify the significance of this, go out and buy 15 - 20 of high fat bacon and wrap yourself in it and report back to us if it doesn't feel like the earth is getting dangerously hot!

It is always easier to blame the whole world for our troubles. But the dharma teaches us to look within. We are the source of the vast majority of our problems. Al, it's an inside job!

[JR Texas]

Scientists have estimated that during the decade following Al Gore's crusade against global warming he gained approximately 15 - 20 kilos in body weight, predominantly insulating fat tissue. Just to clarify the significance of this, go out and buy 15 - 20 of high fat bacon and wrap yourself in it and report back to us if it doesn't feel like the earth is getting dangerously hot!

It is always easier to blame the whole world for our troubles. But the dharma teaches us to look within. We are the source of the vast majority of our problems. Al, it's an inside job!

Thanks........good way to start the morning.......now you have given the skeptics something to talk about.

[AleG]

Yeah, that sounds better, 'it contained errors and was corrected'. That is much easier to swallow then the data was manipulated to serve a political agenda. This is the governmental panel on climate change. You would think they would have the ability to collate data. But as it turns out many of them are not even scientists, and many of the scientists who were on the panel left in disgust of the agenda based tactics.

Do I have a website that disproves global warming? I thought most of the Climate gurus have dropped that label in favor of the bullet proof 'Climate Change'. Which proves itself right every five minutes as the weather changes. Wouldn't you know,I got caught in the rain today because of climate change. It was sunny and then the climate changed right before my eyes.

What you should be asking is if I have a website that shows that the best thing that could possibly happen is Global warming. If the temperature would come up a degree or two, like it did in the medieval warming. People in Northern climes could grow crops their ancestors used to grow, like grapes.

Canadians wouldn't have 8 bloody months of winter every year so they might get better at soccer and baseball. And tropical species could extend their range and we could save a lot of endangered critters. By the way when it did warm up in the past, there was no runaway warming effect where all life on Earth was threatened. But everybody is still terrified of that 0.5 Celsius increase we have had in the last hundred years. When in reality we have just recovered from an mini ice age, so the warming was a blessing.

I am sorry you can't watch the video, it is quite good. Show me a website that proofs that global warming is an actual threat to humanity and not a bunch of conjecture and breathless hype. And then I will find some fresh links for you. it is about time your side had some new evidence. I am tired of watching the same ice shelf collapse.

You know, "I got nothing" would had been quicker.

Science is an iterative process, you study something and build a knowledge base that can be expanded and corrected if needed, when data and conclusions need a revision it doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy to hide the facts, it means that most scientist have the integrity to revise their work and improve on it.

Here's temperature data from the NOAA for the last two hundred years, shows an increase .

Here's what NASA's GISS institute has studied and concluded., make sure to check the PDF because it points to an actual scientific study, you know, substantiated arguments and all that.

From there:

The study, led by James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, N.Y., along with scientists from other organizations concludes that, because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels in the current interglacial period, which has lasted nearly 12,000 years. An “interglacial period” is a time in the Earth’s history when the area of Earth covered by glaciers was similar or smaller than at the present time. Recent warming is forcing species of plants and animals to move toward the north and south poles.

The study used temperatures around the world taken during the last century. Scientists concluded that these data showed the Earth has been warming at the remarkably rapid rate of approximately 0.36 Fahrenheit (0.2 Celsius) per decade for the past 30 years.

“This evidence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human-made pollution,” said Hansen….

The most important result found by these researchers is that the warming in recent decades has brought global temperature to a level within about one degree Celsius (1.8F) of the maximum temperature of the past million years.

NOAA's paleoclimate studies. Shows the temperatures reaching the same levels as 125000 years ago, but under different circumstances:

It appears that temperatures (at least summer temperatures) were slightly warmer than today (by about 1 to 2°C), but for reasons that are well known - the changes in the Earth's orbit.

Wikipedia has a composite graph superposing 11 different studies on Earth's global temperature in the last 2000 years. All show roughly the same warming trends

Now you may discard all that as part of the conspiracy, but from an argument point of view unbased assertions carry less weight than physical evidence. Or at least one would hope so...

[canuckamuck]

You know, "I got nothing" would had been quicker.

I didn't say I got nothing, but I am not foolish enough to assume I will be able to provide a true believer with evidence they would accept even if I had the entire IPCC write you a personal "please forgive us" letter.

In a debate about scientific theories, especially something as imaginative and un-testable as ACC, it is unlikely to discover definitive proof, only intelligent arguments for and against. I have provided many such links and arguments in the numerous threads about this topic, and we all know where it ends. So just to be original I said "Show me a website that proves that global warming is an actual threat to humanity and not a bunch of conjecture and breathless hype." I know you won't because you can't That is not to say I concede to ACC theory, I don't, but rather it can't even be assumed to be a threat.

Science is an iterative process, you study something and build a knowledge base that can be expanded and corrected if needed, when data and conclusions need a revision it doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy to hide the facts, it means that most scientist have the integrity to revise their work and improve on it.

And it has long been known how power and position can influence some scientist's sense of integrity. You can not deny that global warming is lucrative industry determined to defend its cash cow at all costs. Al gore himself has multiplied his net worth by a factor of 100 by some accounts. That is pretty powerful motivation to keep the gravy train moving along. How low could you go to double your net worth in short time? For some it is pretty low indeed.

" Here's temperature data from the NOAA for the last two hundred years, shows an increase. "

Nice, that takes us back nearly to the Maunder minimum,(the last mini ice age coinciding with very low solar activity) thank God it warmed up since then.

Here's what NASA's GISS institute has studied and concluded., make sure to check the PDF because it points to an actual scientific study, you know, substantiated arguments and all that.

Headline from the link "New Hansen et al. study: Earth's temperature within 1 degree C of highest in past million years"

Wow: after the last one hundred years of temperature increasing a whopping 0.5 degrees, we have made it to 1 degree from a point in history a million years ago. That means 100 years ago we were only 1.5 degrees from the highest point in history and 100 years before that we were in a mini ice age and probably 1 degree away from the coldest point in history. Is this proving that everything is just fine, it seems like it?

Ok I can't nest any more quotes so I will quit for now. I will attempt to look at your other links later, I promise

Cheers

[Donnyboy]

They are not interested, because they do not CARE. It is human nature not to care about strangers 50 years from now. You see where human nature is getting us as a species. As long as there is any chance at all that the mainstream scientists are wrong about where we are headed, they are happy with their rationality about why we don't need to undergo painful change for the sake of our species future on our planet.

Maybe I don't care, or maybe I'm not easily brainwashed by those trying to make money out of a falsehood. The earth was heating and cooling for 4.5 billion years before I was born, and will continue to do so for another 4.5 billion after I'm dead, which is when it is estimated the sun will expand beyond our orbit and fry anything unlucky enough to still be around, so excuse me if I don't get out of my SUV and onto my pushbike. The sincerity of all those "green" companies goes as far as needed to make a buck, and I'm continually amazed at how many fall for their advertising. Look at Toyota, for example. We're bombarded with how they care, because they produce hybrid cars. Those hybrids get less fuel economy than a modern European built diesel, most of which aren't sold here because of the strangle hold the Japanese motor industry have on the Thai auto policy makers, but let's forget that for a minute. Good old Toyota, caring about global warming / climate change / freezing / whatever the weather does in the next few years. Coming out with the Prius, the Harrier hybrid, the small engined Corolla, the 5L land Cruiser, the 6L mega Cruiser. Hypocracy anyone?

Al Gore leaving his house lights on during Earth Hour

[Jingthing]

If the people who believe mainstream science are wrong, they say, oh sorry, we messed up.

If the skeptics are wrong, they say, oh sorry, sorry about the planet and that it is now too late to fix it!

I take opinions from people from cold climates with a grain of salt. One can understand that they want some warming ...

Edited June 24, 2009 by Jingthing

[AleG]

Wow: after the last one hundred years of temperature increasing a whopping 0.5 degrees...

You keep using that number, but it's not right. In the past three decades alone temperatures have risen 0.6 degrees. And that's an increase completely decoupled from solar output, since during this period the Sun's energy output has reminded more or less constant.

As a matter of fact temperatures in the last 100 years have increase by 0.8 to 1 degree. In the 1910s the temperature was bellow 0.4 degrees from the median, today it's 0.6 degrees above it. Note that the graph stops at the year 2000, now the temperatures are 0.2 degrees higher than then.

More worryingly is the rate of warming has been accelerating in the last decades.

Yes, temperatures now are the highest in 1 million years, and the trend is that they'll keep increasing. If by magic all human CO2 output would stop the atmosphere would still be above normal levels for decades if not centuries and the warming would continue. The time to take measure is before things get too bad, not wait until they are as bad as 1 million, 10 million or 100 million years ago.

I just don't understand that sort of thinking, I've debated with some global warming denier in another message board, and in all seriousness he said that, in order to accept that global warming, or CAGW (his pet acronym, Catastrophic Anthropogenic GW) the threshold would be 10% of the human population to die as a direct result of the higher temperatures. That's more than 600 million people; I may be wrong, but that's more people killed in all the wars in history.

[AleG]

If the people who believe mainstream science are wrong, they say, oh sorry, we messed up.

If the skeptics are wrong, they say, oh sorry, sorry about the planet and that it is now too late to fix it!

I take opinions from people from cold climates with a grain of salt. One can understand that they want some warming ...

Precisely, I'd be very happy to eat crow and say how wrong I was, than to be right.

In any case the measures necessary to stop GW are needed regardless of the threat of global warming and climate change; a shift from burning fossil fuels to renewable sources.... which I think is the third time I repeat it.

[IanForbes]

All graphs show a warming trend. The question is about how much man is involved with the warming trend and what can he do about it... or is WILLING to do about it. When it comes to dollars there will ALWAYS be someone to will manipulate the facts for their own gain. I'm 69 and I've been through many of these so called scientific studies proving one thing or another. They've all proven false after 20 years or so.

What I DO think is a valuable lesson is this so called global warming problem HAS caused people to be more aware of the environment and their own part in it. I have seen remarkable changes for the better in the way people think. I've seen pollution reduced in areas that were cesspools before. Vehicles HAVE become more efficient.

The greatest problem the world faces today is the growing population. So far we haven't stemmed the problem in third world countries and the economically poorer groups in the richer western cultures. The black and hispanic cutures still breed at twice the rate of white people in the USA. And, as a group, their level of education averages far lower. Asians who come to North America rise to the top in both education and the willingness to cut down on breeding.

Although strange and harsh as it might be, the world doesn't have enough natural disasters and wars to kill off the growing number of excess people. AIDS was supposed to kill off all the stupid ones, but we've even curbed that potential threat. Nature doesn't care what species replaces another one. Nothing exists in a vacuum. When one species dies another takes its place.

[canuckamuck]

Wow: after the last one hundred years of temperature increasing a whopping 0.5 degrees...

You keep using that number, but it's not right. In the past three decades alone temperatures have risen 0.6 degrees. And that's an increase completely decoupled from solar output, since during this period the Sun's energy output has reminded more or less constant.

As a matter of fact temperatures in the last 100 years have increase by 0.8 to 1 degree. In the 1910s the temperature was bellow 0.4 degrees from the median, today it's 0.6 degrees above it. Note that the graph stops at the year 2000, now the temperatures are 0.2 degrees higher than then.

More worryingly is the rate of warming has been accelerating in the last decades.

Yes, temperatures now are the highest in 1 million years, and the trend is that they'll keep increasing. If by magic all human CO2 output would stop the atmosphere would still be above normal levels for decades if not centuries and the warming would continue. The time to take measure is before things get too bad, not wait until they are as bad as 1 million, 10 million or 100 million years ago.

I just don't understand that sort of thinking, I've debated with some global warming denier in another message board, and in all seriousness he said that, in order to accept that global warming, or CAGW (his pet acronym, Catastrophic Anthropogenic GW) the threshold would be 10% of the human population to die as a direct result of the higher temperatures. That's more than 600 million people; I may be wrong, but that's more people killed in all the wars in history.

Your look at the chart was quite optimistic. the best I can give you is 0.73 degrees increase considering the final point on the graph is not reflected whatsoever in the median. And we know we are on a cooling trend for the last two years so don't tell me it is higher today than the graph shows. My comment on this tiny point stands and I will accept I was off by 0.13 degrees if we go from the turn of the century. Which is what I meant, or 0.23 if we go from 1910 which was a brief cooling period. My figure was based on an average of what I have seen reported.

I have no idea what the other guy meant, but I like his acronym.