Global Warming Has Reached Chiang Mai

[canuckamuck]

Yes it's been confirmed (by all Pacific rim countries) that we're in another El Nino year. Don't know why it took so long to confirm as certain agencies reported warmer (+1degree) ocean temps way back in Nov/Dec. My theory is that our planet has been super-heated (yes, just 1 degree C) by extreme solar activity in recent years, but hey, thats my theory.

Global warming ... is that still politically correct terminology?

An increased rate of El Niño years is exactly what global warming scenarios predict. Among other occurrences of extreme weather.

"Global warming" is a scientific term, not a political one.

Who cares what politicians think?

Cheers, CM-Expat

Yes in fact all describable weather phenomena is a direct result of global warming. Including ice storms, heat waves, hurricanes, pleasant summer evenings, lengthened growing seasons, rain, rainbows, sunburn, frostbite, puffy clouds, and lately volcanoes and earthquakes have been included. In fact if you look out your window and do not see an empty colourless void, you are staring right in the face of global warming.

Edited June 30, 2015 by canuckamuck

[ilostmypassword]

Certainly hot for the time of year and out here in Doi Saket, we keep on getting the threat of rain and then it blows over...isn't all this hot weather and lack of rain something to do with El Nino? Don't ask me why, I though El Nino was a Mexican restaurant until a while back

Yes it's been confirmed (by all Pacific rim countries) that we're in another El Nino year. Don't know why it took so long to confirm as certain agencies reported warmer (+1degree) ocean temps way back in Nov/Dec. My theory is that our planet has been super-heated (yes, just 1 degree C) by extreme solar activity in recent years, but hey, thats my theory.

Global warming ... is that still politically correct terminology?

I think it was Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said "You're entitled to your own opinions. But not your own facts." Here are the facts about the current solar cycle.

"The sun's current space-weather cycle is the most anemic in 100 years, scientists say.

Our star is now at "solar maximum," the peak phase of its 11-year activity cycle. But this solar max is weak, and the overall current cycle, known as Solar Cycle 24, conjures up comparisons to the famously feeble Solar Cycle 14 in the early 1900s, researchers said."

http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html

Considering how easy it was to find this information on the internet, i think that tells us all we need to know about the mindset of human-caused climate change deniers.

[ilostmypassword]

Yes it's been confirmed (by all Pacific rim countries) that we're in another El Nino year. Don't know why it took so long to confirm as certain agencies reported warmer (+1degree) ocean temps way back in Nov/Dec. My theory is that our planet has been super-heated (yes, just 1 degree C) by extreme solar activity in recent years, but hey, thats my theory.

Global warming ... is that still politically correct terminology?

An increased rate of El Niño years is exactly what global warming scenarios predict. Among other occurrences of extreme weather.

"Global warming" is a scientific term, not a political one.

Who cares what politicians think?

Cheers, CM-Expat

You are both correct, and wrong ... "political correctness" has little or nothing to do with Politicians, rather its an ideological attempt to promote equality and tolerance, in most instances.

A portion of the scientific community first coined the 'warming' tag when mankind was thought to be the main perpetrator (remember that hole in the ozone layer?). Greed became a factor as Governments sought to rein in the suspected causes and place burdens (taxes) on industry and thus the taxpaying public. Other scientific studies have shown the long-term warming as a natural occurring phase and therefore the alternate tag is "global climate change".

Are these studies from the same source as the theory of the strong solar cycle? Can you give us more specific information about these studies? Because there's a fellow named James L. Powell, directer of the National Physical Science Consortium who did a survey of over 24,000 climate change papers published in 2013 and 2014 from over 70,000 scientists. He found only 4 authors who published papers denying climate change. You can look it up.

[kaptainrob]

The chart above shows declining solar activity which may, if it continues, lead to cooler global temperatures in 2020 and beyond. The Nov/Dec 2014 peak in cycle 24 is what I was alluding to as causing higher ocean temps (via radiation/absorption) on earth.

As I said, it's my theory re solar heating and there is no scientific data to back it up (nor repudiate) although lack of solar activity was last noted during the little ice age about 700 years ago.

Google 'Nick Anthony Fiorenza' for a source of more information.

[ilostmypassword]

You still haven't answered my query about "other scientific studies".

As for there being "no scientific data.to call your claims into question." In fact there is. Climate scientists have concluded that here may possibly be a very weak correlation at best between solar activity and the overall temperature of the earth. At best. As for 'the Little Ice Age" I guess this is a case of Eurocentricism. It's true that winters in Europe (not so much summers) were much colder than normal for a span of 75 years. But even if that were due to solar activity it's important to remember the Europe is only a small portion of the globe. Apparently there was a lesser degree of unusual chill in North America, but no evidence of it happening for it in the rest of the world. The most reasonable explanation for this is a longterm southern divergence of the jet stream. Which means that it may have gotten colder in the south, but also warmer in the north. No net gain.

Anyway since you wrote that you suspect the blame for recent warming is due to solar activity, but solar activity has been unusually weak, I don't see how you can reasonably make the correlation.

[chiang mai]

An excellent article found here, very simple presentation that tells the story really:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

[amexpat]

It is a very interesting article ^. It is addressed to "skeptics".

A skeptic is doubtful and needs to see more facts before deciding.

A denier has no doubt and no interest in any facts. His mind is made up.

We mostly hear from deniers.

[kaptainrob]

It is a very interesting article ^. It is addressed to "skeptics".

A skeptic is doubtful and needs to see more facts before deciding.

A denier has no doubt and no interest in any facts. His mind is made up.

We mostly hear from deniers.

Not really, though I doubt almost everything used by Government agencies in arguments for higher taxes on the populace.

I support Green Peace ideals and other NGO's who seek a better (greener) World. What I do not accept is multi-million dollar government funded studies and economic-driven articles, at face value. Computer modeling is good, not infallible ...

Pollution and green-house emissions, whilst undoubtedly contributing to 'climate change', are not necessarily the primary cause. One should keep an open mind .... 'are there WMD's in Iraq' ... 'is the World flat'.

If the US (or other western) governments really believed the 'man-made' hype, why do they allow THEIR dirty, polluting industries to move offshore? [Then point fingers at Indonesia/India/Taiwan/China/South America ...]

[ilostmypassword]

Leading scientists are now saying that vegetarian flatulence may be partially responsible for climate change in modern times. Some are going so far as to say that it may be so catastrophic that it may lead to the vegetarian’s eventual extinction.

The National Revuew elaborates:

Professor Graeme Ruxton of St Andrews University, Scotland, said the ravenous plant eaters have spent 150 years emitting the potent global warming gas, methane.

Given the poor nutrition to mass ratio of vegetarian fare, they have been the main culprits because of the huge amounts of greenery they have consumed.

The team calculated the human herbivores have collectively produced more than 520m tons of methane a year – more than all other sources put together.

It is thought these huge amounts are easily enough to warm the planet.

A few years ago Fox tried to launch a humorous news program with a conservative slant. It crashed and burned after a few weeks.. Clearly, hyku147 is a refugee from that disaster.

[amexpat]

And we also hear from the paranoid and the infantile.

[ilostmypassword]

Been testing my recycled palm oil blend in the truck and manage 140 kmph on the Hangdong road ...but only after midnight when everyones asleep. Tricky part is filtering out the crispy chicken and batter residue thru a series of toilet rolls, new ones. Syncrhonising traffic lights to an all green phase may assist in higher test speeds.

Seriously but...

Since a majority of Chiang Mai's water comes from the CM/Lamphun aquifer, (underground water) I wonder if anyone knows what the current reserves are or where test bore (30 + around the province) data is published? Without good rains the level must be dropping at an alarming rate and I assume bore holes will have to go deeper than ~50m.

As I recall, not so long ago a New York Times article appeared about an impending drought. The reported cited lots of official sources. Didn't you comment that since the article came from the liberal New York Times, it couldn't possibly be true?

[chiang mai]

It is a very interesting article ^. It is addressed to "skeptics".

A skeptic is doubtful and needs to see more facts before deciding.

A denier has no doubt and no interest in any facts. His mind is made up.

We mostly hear from deniers.

Not really, though I doubt almost everything used by Government agencies in arguments for higher taxes on the populace.

I support Green Peace ideals and other NGO's who seek a better (greener) World. What I do not accept is multi-million dollar government funded studies and economic-driven articles, at face value. Computer modeling is good, not infallible ...

Pollution and green-house emissions, whilst undoubtedly contributing to 'climate change', are not necessarily the primary cause. One should keep an open mind .... 'are there WMD's in Iraq' ... 'is the World flat'.

If the US (or other western) governments really believed the 'man-made' hype, why do they allow THEIR dirty, polluting industries to move offshore? [Then point fingers at Indonesia/India/Taiwan/China/South America ...]

Whilst I join you in being skeptical of all things said by big business and politicians, I think there comes a time with issues such as this where a person has to agree that the evidence is what it is, prepared and gathered by the best and re presented time and time again. In the past fifty years of my life during which this subject has been discussed, the answers have always been the same, you'd think would you not that if the correct answer was different, somebody by now would have found it and we would all have saluted it as being correct?

[canuckamuck]

An excellent article found here, very simple presentation that tells the story really:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Simplistic for simpletons and very misleading. For example they use the temperature of the sun as one of the possible causes of warming. They do this so they address the issue of solar induced warming. But this is a red herring. It is not the temperature of the sun that causes temperature fluctuations. It is solar activity / solar winds, that push away the particles upon which clouds form. More solar activity, less clouds, more solar radiation reaches earth.

Also there are being disingenuous with the CO2 chart matching observed temperature increase. Although there is an apparent correlation with CO2 rise and temperature increase for part of the last century. The greater temperature record does not support the hypothesis. Historically CO2 rise has lagged behind temperature increase by about 100 years, and there have been other times where there was no correlation whatsoever. The record suggests rising CO2 is partially a result of the release of CO2 from a warmer ocean.

[ilostmypassword]

Simplistic for simpletons and very misleading. For example they use the temperature of the sun as one of the possible causes of warming. They do this so they address the issue of solar induced warming. But this is a red herring. It is not the temperature of the sun that causes temperature fluctuations. It is solar activity / solar winds, that push away the particles upon which clouds form. More solar activity, less clouds, more solar radiation reaches earth.

Also there are being disingenuous with the CO2 chart matching observed temperature increase. Although there is an apparent correlation with CO2 rise and temperature increase for part of the last century. The greater temperature record does not support the hypothesis. Historically CO2 rise has lagged behind temperature increase by about 100 years, and there have been other times where there was no correlation whatsoever. The record suggests rising CO2 is partially a result of the release of CO2 from a warmer ocean.

Lots of scientists have looked at the question of the effect of solar activity on climate and overwhelmingly find it has at most, a small effect on climate.. What's more, we are in a period of very low solar activity by historical standards. So that renders your claim even more dubious.

As for CO2 lagging temperature in the past, that proves nothing. It doesn't mean that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. It just means that, at most, in the past, it wasn't the initiating factor. (But there is such a thing as a feedback loop.)

Now we are doing something novel. We are generating huge amounts of CO2. Because that didn't happen in the pre-industrial past, doesn't mean it isn't affecting climate change now.

And then, there's this study http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

And of course, there is the history of climate change denial. For many years, human-caused global warming denialists, claimed there was no global warming going on at all, that glaciers weren't melting at an accelerated rate, etc. Now that the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, they are shifting ground by saying that there is global warming but it's not human caused. 70,000 scientists say human-induced global warming is happening , 4 say not. I bet you invest your money in lotteries, too.

Edited July 1, 2015 by ilostmypassword

[chiang mai]

An excellent article found here, very simple presentation that tells the story really:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Simplistic for simpletons and very misleading. For example they use the temperature of the sun as one of the possible causes of warming. They do this so they address the issue of solar induced warming. But this is a red herring. It is not the temperature of the sun that causes temperature fluctuations. It is solar activity / solar winds, that push away the particles upon which clouds form. More solar activity, less clouds, more solar radiation reaches earth.

Also there are being disingenuous with the CO2 chart matching observed temperature increase. Although there is an apparent correlation with CO2 rise and temperature increase for part of the last century. The greater temperature record does not support the hypothesis. Historically CO2 rise has lagged behind temperature increase by about 100 years, and there have been other times where there was no correlation whatsoever. The record suggests rising CO2 is partially a result of the release of CO2 from a warmer ocean.

"Simplistic for simpletons".

Oi, do you mind, I've got a CSE Grade 1 in Woodwork!

[kaptainrob]

The most reliable data has been collated in the past 10 or 50 years. A mere droplet of water in the oceans of time!

Ocean temperature readings prior to mid last century were completely random and unreliable ... taken from a bucket lowered over a ships side or later, engine intake water.

Land based recordings, whilst more accurate, have only been standardised in very recent years yet data does show global climate change (warmer temps) over ~ 150 years.

New, highly accurate, US government recording stations have shown a minor DECREASE in temps since installation 10 years ago. Yet the Arctic ice is melting at an alarming rate. No one really knows why these anomalies exist.

Data from satellites (tropospheric measurement) does not correlate with land-based measurements and scientists are at a loss to explain this.

There is still much we do not understand about climatic change, no one is denying that.

[canuckamuck]

Simplistic for simpletons and very misleading. For example they use the temperature of the sun as one of the possible causes of warming. They do this so they address the issue of solar induced warming. But this is a red herring. It is not the temperature of the sun that causes temperature fluctuations. It is solar activity / solar winds, that push away the particles upon which clouds form. More solar activity, less clouds, more solar radiation reaches earth.

Also there are being disingenuous with the CO2 chart matching observed temperature increase. Although there is an apparent correlation with CO2 rise and temperature increase for part of the last century. The greater temperature record does not support the hypothesis. Historically CO2 rise has lagged behind temperature increase by about 100 years, and there have been other times where there was no correlation whatsoever. The record suggests rising CO2 is partially a result of the release of CO2 from a warmer ocean.

Lots of scientists have looked at the question of the effect of solar activity on climate and overwhelmingly find it has at most, a small effect on climate.. What's more, we are in a period of very low solar activity by historical standards. So that renders your claim even more dubious.

As for CO2 lagging temperature in the past, that proves nothing. It doesn't mean that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. It just means that, at most, in the past, it wasn't the initiating factor. (But there is such a thing as a feedback loop.)

Now we are doing something novel. We are generating huge amounts of CO2. Because that didn't happen in the pre-industrial past, doesn't mean it isn't affecting climate change now.

And then, there's this study http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

And of course, there is the history of climate change denial. For many years, human-caused global warming denialists, claimed there was no global warming going on at all, that glaciers weren't melting at an accelerated rate, etc. Now that the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, they are shifting ground by saying that there is global warming but it's not human caused. 70,000 scientists say human-induced global warming is happening , 4 say not. I bet you invest your money in lotteries, too.

Well lets have a look at solar activity, Kaptain Rob posted this nice graphic earlier in this thread.

Can you see the massive spike around 1990 and then another about 2002? Isn't it interesting that all these record temperatures occurred shortly after a big solar activity spike.

And now with reduced solar activity we no longer see warming records being set.

As for you CO2 feedback loop. You have to be in some serious denial to imagine that high CO2 can effect temperatures 100 years in the past. According to this logic. the high CO2 we see today is responsible for the rise in temperature starting about 100 years ago. But call me crazy, I like to think it is the other way around. We warmed up 100 years and more CO2 is being released from the oceans today.

As for climate change denial. I don't think there is many people out there who would say it didn't warm up last century. So when you see glacial melt it is obvious that it occurs because it is warmer out. there is nothing surprising about that. Did you know that since we still have polar ice caps that the Earth is still technically in an glacial period. So a little warming is nothing to cry about, the overall impact of the last warming period has been tremendous advancement and prosperity on the earth. The earth thrives in the interglacials.

And finally that old chestnut about how many people working in climate science believe in AGW. I would be surprised that the number isn't 100 percent. If I worked for a company that had it's entire purpose to exist wrapped up in some type of global threat. I would be inclined to promote the opinion that the threat does exist.

Edit: You article backs up my comments about CO2 lag, but shows there is some question about the amount of lag. However temperature rise still proceeds CO2 rise. So you egg is still laying chickens.

Edited July 1, 2015 by canuckamuck

[ilostmypassword]

The most reliable data has been collated in the past 10 or 50 years. A mere droplet of water in the oceans of time!

Ocean temperature readings prior to mid last century were completely random and unreliable ... taken from a bucket lowered over a ships side or later, engine intake water.

Land based recordings, whilst more accurate, have only been standardised in very recent years yet data does show global climate change (warmer temps) over ~ 150 years.

New, highly accurate, US government recording stations have shown a minor DECREASE in temps since installation 10 years ago. Yet the Arctic ice is melting at an alarming rate. No one really knows why these anomalies exist.

Data from satellites (tropospheric measurement) does not correlate with land-based measurements and scientists are at a loss to explain this.

There is still much we do not understand about climatic change, no one is denying that.

First of all, land based temperature would only measure 1-2 percent of all global warming. The land you are referring to is only for the continental U.S. So by itself it has little statistical significance.

As for the supposed anomaly between the troposheric temperature and surface temperature, that's like saying that there's an anomaly between ocean temperatures and land temperatures. Land temperatures fluctuate a lot more than ocean or high atmospheric temperatures. When you cancel out the noise there is no anomaly.

Most likely you got this information directly or indirectly from a fellow named Anthony Watts (wattsupwiththat.org) a prominent anthropogenic climate change denier. At any rate, he's the author of it.

Here's an interesting story about Mr. Watts. Several years ago, a prominent physicist named Richard Muller publicly questioned a very important piece of climate change data. Namely, the fact that weather stations in some areas had been affected by urbanization/suburbanization so that they were reporting higher temperatures due to that rather than climate change. Climate scientists protested that they had taken that into account. Muller didn't accept their explanations. Mr. Watts, and his patrons, the Koch brothers hired Muller to re-examine the results from "more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world. " Here's the link http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348

Muller's conclusions: climate scientist had gotten it exactly right all along.

When Muller's report came out, Watts first tried to disown it. Then he grudgingly accepted it. Soon after he dropped all references to it. This is the source you are getting your NOAA information from.

[kaptainrob]

^ nope, never heard of those ppl.

My knowledge comes direct from sources such as USCRN, NOAA, NASA etc, not your 'deniers'. I am not in the habit of spreading bullsh1t around.

As you point out, land based measurements are minor in comparison to (very unreliable) historical ocean temps. Having traversed many oceans, watching instruments at the helm, I can attest to a wide range of seawater temps during any 24hr period. Only very recent (~ 20 year) data is in any way valid.

NOAA/NCDC is unable to correlate troposphere temp data with ground data which may indicate "prediction of climate models is incorrect or there are complicating matters which we're missing".

[ilostmypassword]

Simplistic for simpletons and very misleading. For example they use the temperature of the sun as one of the possible causes of warming. They do this so they address the issue of solar induced warming. But this is a red herring. It is not the temperature of the sun that causes temperature fluctuations. It is solar activity / solar winds, that push away the particles upon which clouds form. More solar activity, less clouds, more solar radiation reaches earth.

Also there are being disingenuous with the CO2 chart matching observed temperature increase. Although there is an apparent correlation with CO2 rise and temperature increase for part of the last century. The greater temperature record does not support the hypothesis. Historically CO2 rise has lagged behind temperature increase by about 100 years, and there have been other times where there was no correlation whatsoever. The record suggests rising CO2 is partially a result of the release of CO2 from a warmer ocean.

Lots of scientists have looked at the question of the effect of solar activity on climate and overwhelmingly find it has at most, a small effect on climate.. What's more, we are in a period of very low solar activity by historical standards. So that renders your claim even more dubious.

As for CO2 lagging temperature in the past, that proves nothing. It doesn't mean that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. It just means that, at most, in the past, it wasn't the initiating factor. (But there is such a thing as a feedback loop.)

Now we are doing something novel. We are generating huge amounts of CO2. Because that didn't happen in the pre-industrial past, doesn't mean it isn't affecting climate change now.

And then, there's this study http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

And of course, there is the history of climate change denial. For many years, human-caused global warming denialists, claimed there was no global warming going on at all, that glaciers weren't melting at an accelerated rate, etc. Now that the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, they are shifting ground by saying that there is global warming but it's not human caused. 70,000 scientists say human-induced global warming is happening , 4 say not. I bet you invest your money in lotteries, too.

Well lets have a look at solar activity, Kaptain Rob posted this nice graphic earlier in this thread.

Can you see the massive spike around 1990 and then another about 2002? Isn't it interesting that all these record temperatures occurred shortly after a big solar activity spike.

And now with reduced solar activity we no longer see warming records being set.

As for you CO2 feedback loop. You have to be in some serious denial to imagine that high CO2 can effect temperatures 100 years in the past. According to this logic. the high CO2 we see today is responsible for the rise in temperature starting about 100 years ago. But call me crazy, I like to think it is the other way around. We warmed up 100 years and more CO2 is being released from the oceans today.

As for climate change denial. I don't think there is many people out there who would say it didn't warm up last century. So when you see glacial melt it is obvious that it occurs because it is warmer out. there is nothing surprising about that. Did you know that since we still have polar ice caps that the Earth is still technically in an glacial period. So a little warming is nothing to cry about, the overall impact of the last warming period has been tremendous advancement and prosperity on the earth. The earth thrives in the interglacials.

And finally that old chestnut about how many people working in climate science believe in AGW. I would be surprised that the number isn't 100 percent. If I worked for a company that had it's entire purpose to exist wrapped up in some type of global threat. I would be inclined to promote the opinion that the threat does exist.

Edit: You article backs up my comments about CO2 lag, but shows there is some question about the amount of lag. However temperature rise still proceeds CO2 rise. So you egg is still laying chickens.

So much misinformation packed into such a small space. I congratulate you on your economy. Let's start with the warmest years. Apparently you got your information from a website that hasn't been updated since 2006. But a lot has happened since sometime n 2006. LIke 2007, 2008, 2009. 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and, I believe, 2014. Oh yes, and the end of 2006. Here are the latest numbers for the warmest years computed separately by NASA and the NOAA. In ascending order:

2007. 2009. 2006, 2002, 2003, 2013,1998, 2005, 2010, 2014. As you ought to have known, 1998 was the year of a huge el nino when the western pacific released huge amounts of heat into the atmosphere. Which explains what it's doing at #4.

I think this also dispatches with you solar cycle theory.

Lots of your confreres used to be denying that the last century was getting warmer and, like you, they still are in denial about this century. 13 of the 15 hottest years recorded all took place in the 21st century.

You seem fixated on the notion that because in the past warming preceded the rise in carbon dioxide, that carbon dioxide can't be responsible for warming. (And it's not even clear that this is the case and takes no account of feedback loops) This time is different. This time carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is increasing at an unprecedented rate. And the rate of the rise in temperature is also preceding at an unprecedented rate. This is not consistent with past warmings. There's something different this time. You see, science isn't just qualitative. It's quantitative.You can't say because warming happened in the past, it's no big deal. It's the rate of warming that's alarming. This is unprecedented.

And as for the conspiracy theory. It would be difficult enough to suppress news of falsification if all these scientists worked for one employer. But they work for many. All over the world. Not even the NSA can keep its secrets. But somehow climate scientists, operating in a much less secure environment, can. Recently, as you may recall, a prominent scientist called into question the "slowdown" in the rate of temperature rise. Other client scientists, including the denialists' bogeyman, Michael Mann, disagreed. Some conspiracy. You may recall back when someone hacked into the emails of climate scientists and gave the data to Rupert Murdoch's Sunday times. The result was "Climategate" in which it was allegedly proved that eminent climate scientists were lying. This nonsense still survives in many climate change denial websites. As you may recall, the Sunday Times, which led the major media attack, had to retract the charges in their entirety. In other words, It was false. But don't look for the retraction on their website. It's gone down the memory hole.This is a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper, after all.

[canuckamuck]

Lots of scientists have looked at the question of the effect of solar activity on climate and overwhelmingly find it has at most, a small effect on climate.. What's more, we are in a period of very low solar activity by historical standards. So that renders your claim even more dubious.

As for CO2 lagging temperature in the past, that proves nothing. It doesn't mean that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. It just means that, at most, in the past, it wasn't the initiating factor. (But there is such a thing as a feedback loop.)

Now we are doing something novel. We are generating huge amounts of CO2. Because that didn't happen in the pre-industrial past, doesn't mean it isn't affecting climate change now.

And then, there's this study http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

And of course, there is the history of climate change denial. For many years, human-caused global warming denialists, claimed there was no global warming going on at all, that glaciers weren't melting at an accelerated rate, etc. Now that the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, they are shifting ground by saying that there is global warming but it's not human caused. 70,000 scientists say human-induced global warming is happening , 4 say not. I bet you invest your money in lotteries, too.

Well lets have a look at solar activity, Kaptain Rob posted this nice graphic earlier in this thread.

Can you see the massive spike around 1990 and then another about 2002? Isn't it interesting that all these record temperatures occurred shortly after a big solar activity spike.

And now with reduced solar activity we no longer see warming records being set.

As for you CO2 feedback loop. You have to be in some serious denial to imagine that high CO2 can effect temperatures 100 years in the past. According to this logic. the high CO2 we see today is responsible for the rise in temperature starting about 100 years ago. But call me crazy, I like to think it is the other way around. We warmed up 100 years and more CO2 is being released from the oceans today.

As for climate change denial. I don't think there is many people out there who would say it didn't warm up last century. So when you see glacial melt it is obvious that it occurs because it is warmer out. there is nothing surprising about that. Did you know that since we still have polar ice caps that the Earth is still technically in an glacial period. So a little warming is nothing to cry about, the overall impact of the last warming period has been tremendous advancement and prosperity on the earth. The earth thrives in the interglacials.

And finally that old chestnut about how many people working in climate science believe in AGW. I would be surprised that the number isn't 100 percent. If I worked for a company that had it's entire purpose to exist wrapped up in some type of global threat. I would be inclined to promote the opinion that the threat does exist.

Edit: You article backs up my comments about CO2 lag, but shows there is some question about the amount of lag. However temperature rise still proceeds CO2 rise. So you egg is still laying chickens.

So much misinformation packed into such a small space. I congratulate you on your economy. Let's start with the warmest years. Apparently you got your information from a website that hasn't been updated since 2006. But a lot has happened since sometime n 2006. LIke 2007, 2008, 2009. 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and, I believe, 2014. Oh yes, and the end of 2006. Here are the latest numbers for the warmest years computed separately by NASA and the NOAA. In ascending order:

2007. 2009. 2006, 2002, 2003, 2013,1998, 2005, 2010, 2014. As you ought to have known, 1998 was the year of a huge el nino when the western pacific released huge amounts of heat into the atmosphere. Which explains what it's doing at #4.

I think this also dispatches with you solar cycle theory.

Lots of your confreres used to be denying that the last century was getting warmer and, like you, they still are in denial about this century. 13 of the 15 hottest years recorded all took place in the 21st century.

You seem fixated on the notion that because in the past warming preceded the rise in carbon dioxide, that carbon dioxide can't be responsible for warming. (And it's not even clear that this is the case and takes no account of feedback loops) This time is different. This time carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is increasing at an unprecedented rate. And the rate of the rise in temperature is also preceding at an unprecedented rate. This is not consistent with past warmings. There's something different this time. You see, science isn't just qualitative. It's quantitative.You can't say because warming happened in the past, it's no big deal. It's the rate of warming that's alarming. This is unprecedented.

And as for the conspiracy theory. It would be difficult enough to suppress news of falsification if all these scientists worked for one employer. But they work for many. All over the world. Not even the NSA can keep its secrets. But somehow climate scientists, operating in a much less secure environment, can. Recently, as you may recall, a prominent scientist called into question the "slowdown" in the rate of temperature rise. Other client scientists, including the denialists' bogeyman, Michael Mann, disagreed. Some conspiracy. You may recall back when someone hacked into the emails of climate scientists and gave the data to Rupert Murdoch's Sunday times. The result was "Climategate" in which it was allegedly proved that eminent climate scientists were lying. This nonsense still survives in many climate change denial websites. As you may recall, the Sunday Times, which led the major media attack, had to retract the charges in their entirety. In other words, It was false. But don't look for the retraction on their website. It's gone down the memory hole.This is a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper, after all.

All right I'll own it, that graphic with temperatures is really out of date. I should have been more careful. But now you look at the temperature record for the last century and you see a big rise between 1910 and 1940 and then, a lull, and then another between 1970 and 2000. after that you basically get a flat line. And all of those dates after 1998 are basically the same temperature with 100th's of a degree difference between them.

The high solar activity peaks from my graphic were 1990 2002 and 2014. But a look at the last century shows a very high solar activity average from between 1940 and 2010 which lines up with the observed warming in the temperature record. So I may have made a gaff with a bad graphic, but the solar heating is obviously a real thing which the warmies are desperate to make it seem insignificant. Why? because if it is the sun we can't do anything about it and we can't blame capitalism et all.

That 13 of the 15 hottest years have all taken place in this century is meaningless except to say that the earth got warmer and stayed there. The earth has been here before, several times. 12000 years ago they had a warming of more than 15 degrees in mere decades. How can you say the warming today is unprecedented?

For the rest of your post, please explain to me a feedback loop where high CO2 levels 100 or 500 years into the future can effect the temperature now. Because in essence you seem to be saying it is possible. Here's a tip, effect follows cause. We have no long scale historical evidence of CO2 rise preceding warming.

As for conspiracy, all that is required for it to occur is that all of the people involved profit from the promotion of the same scenario. All the camps may have different goals, but they all rely on AGW to be real. Leftists want to tear down globalists and spread socialism, politicians want to tax, scientist want grants and careers...

[amexpat]

I feel awful! Since 2006 I have a bit of of an imperfect TV joker, but now I am a demonic climate change denier! Perhaps my critics have had to much solar radiation during their nude climate change protests?

*"Oh The Humanity!"

*{I wonder if they understand the relevance of this historical statement?}

* Your silly arguments going down in flames?

Edited July 1, 2015 by amexpat

[kaptainrob]

I feel awful! Since 2006 I have a bit of of an imperfect TV joker, but now I am a demonic climate change denier! Perhaps my critics have had to much solar radiation during their nude climate change protests?

*"Oh The Humanity!"

*{I wonder if they understand the relevance of this historical statement?}

You appear to have been out in the sun too long old mate ... On and ppl who talk about 'denial' have no grasp on the English language. After all, no one is denying our climates have changed. Have a beer or 6 and don't worry, we may get hit by an asteroid long before running out of water or being inundated by rising sea levels. Hate to run out of beer first ..... 555

[amexpat]

Nay Nay, Cap'n. Try to grasp that we are talking about climate science deniers - people who don't accept mankind's contribution to the problem.

It is amusing to see the theories of people who choose to believe they have discovered stuff that thousands of real scientists have overlooked in their million

man-hours of research. It must be a very heady feeling.

Those who believe in an international conspiracy of the people most of us regard as highly committed to the pursuit of knowledge are also a hoot.

Laugh it off. I know that nothing, nothing, can penetrate the bubble.

[chiangmaiexpat]

The authority for answering the question of what is causing global warming is the IPCC and their message is quite clear. I am not really sure why this is even being discussed. The question has already been answered and there is overwhelming scientific evidence for greenhouse gases being the cause.

It's a complete waste of time to discuss solar cycles, volcanic activity, earth orbits and such, when it is already clear that anthropogenic emissions are causing the warming.

Why is it that the most vocal climate sceptics come from the USA, the same country that also boasts the highest number of patents and science Nobel prizes in the 20th century? Seems paradoxical to me.

Cheers, CM-Expat

[northernjohn]

Simplistic for simpletons and very misleading. For example they use the temperature of the sun as one of the possible causes of warming. They do this so they address the issue of solar induced warming. But this is a red herring. It is not the temperature of the sun that causes temperature fluctuations. It is solar activity / solar winds, that push away the particles upon which clouds form. More solar activity, less clouds, more solar radiation reaches earth.

Also there are being disingenuous with the CO2 chart matching observed temperature increase. Although there is an apparent correlation with CO2 rise and temperature increase for part of the last century. The greater temperature record does not support the hypothesis. Historically CO2 rise has lagged behind temperature increase by about 100 years, and there have been other times where there was no correlation whatsoever. The record suggests rising CO2 is partially a result of the release of CO2 from a warmer ocean.

Lots of scientists have looked at the question of the effect of solar activity on climate and overwhelmingly find it has at most, a small effect on climate.. What's more, we are in a period of very low solar activity by historical standards. So that renders your claim even more dubious.

As for CO2 lagging temperature in the past, that proves nothing. It doesn't mean that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. It just means that, at most, in the past, it wasn't the initiating factor. (But there is such a thing as a feedback loop.)

Now we are doing something novel. We are generating huge amounts of CO2. Because that didn't happen in the pre-industrial past, doesn't mean it isn't affecting climate change now.

And then, there's this study http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

And of course, there is the history of climate change denial. For many years, human-caused global warming denialists, claimed there was no global warming going on at all, that glaciers weren't melting at an accelerated rate, etc. Now that the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, they are shifting ground by saying that there is global warming but it's not human caused. 70,000 scientists say human-induced global warming is happening , 4 say not. I bet you invest your money in lotteries, too.

Very well stated. The only point that is not clear and I don't think science has the precise answer is how much is are increasing contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere adding to the increasing global warmth? We know it is not the prime mover but it is a helper in speeding it up. I wonder how much.

The governments don't seem to think it is a problem with their make believe attempts at cutting it back.

Not the first time they have been wrong.

[green job]

You are ALL so funny

[amexpat]

You are ALL so funny

While you ride high above the fray, amused by people who concern themselves with things like survival.

[green job]

You are ALL so funny

While you ride high above the fray, amused by people who concern themselves with things like survival.