http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/c...rc=eoa-ann

NASA drops some facts on why "climate change" (sometimes referred to by the misleading name "Global Warming") is different from the normal warming and cooling of the Earth.

--------------
http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Here is a site with some counterarguments to skeptical claims. There are citations, I believe. If you do not think this site is trustworthy, just tell me!

If they would call it global warming or global cooling, I would know the general direction in which they think the temperature will move.

Problem with the name "global warming" is:

"HEY GUYS IT'S SNOWING IN WINTER IN CANADA! GUESS THIS MEANS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE!"

While I'll give you points for finally bringing that only report that might actually convince me it's happening, they still don't address the fact that CO2 levels usually -follow- temperature changes, instead of leading them. There is considerable doubt that CO2 has an effect on temperature.

As long as climatologists refuse to releases the raw, unedited data for others to do their own research, and they haven't managed to satisfactorily answer EVERY single question, the world can't afford to take them at their word. It's not science when it's done that way, it's a scam.

I get that they want to make money... But that's actually the problem. They appear to be completely motivated by it, and at the same time ask us to be motivated by saving the planet.

@wccrawford plenty of climatologists share their data with other scientists, just not with journalists or random people who email them. There's nothing unscientific about conforming with intellectual property laws and data licenses. Your attitude is exactly the reason why it's sensible to only share data with scientists - non-scientists will misinterpret the data because they don't know what they're talking about. Enough people making false conclusions based on their own lack of understanding can mislead the public.

I'm not going to get into yet another debate with climate skeptics but if you actually learn the earth sciences required to even begin to understand the interactions of CO2 and temperature forcing, you'll start to agree with the scientific consensus. It's far more complicated than "CO2 levels usually follow temperature" or vice versa.

@jcdietz03 the reason the name 'Global warming' has been largely abandoned is because it is not universally accurate. Some places will warm, some will cool, in general there will be high temporal density of extreme weather. Climate change is an accurate description.

wccrawford Wrote:As long as climatologists refuse to releases the raw, unedited data for others to do their own research

Oh, hi there!

I think @wccrawford was being sarcastic? Not sure, though.

Climate change is such crap. Just watch AN INCOVENIENT TRUTH, and thereafter check his data. All of the main points in that are backed up by manipulations of data, or outright lies...I was pretty upset when I found out their "facts" weren't even real, the fact is the science is far from settled so therefore no need to for any ridiculous notions such as carbon taxes. ...Especially since carbon dioxide is far from the primary cause of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor cause as much as 70 % of the it... oh and what... Polar bears are thriving... oh what...oh

@Yonosa an inconvenient truth has nothing to do with climate science. It's a movie by a politician. I hope you're being sarcastic otherwise you're making yourself sound really, really stupid.

Mcjon01 Wrote:

wccrawford Wrote:As long as climatologists refuse to releases the raw, unedited data for others to do their own research

Oh, hi there!

"These reviews include preprocessing checks on source data"

Not 'raw'.

wccrawford Wrote:"These reviews include preprocessing checks on source data"

Not 'raw'.

You clearly didn't read the page. The data is published raw. The data is also checked before publication - those are the preprocessing checks which you randomly picked out to support your pathetic non-argument.

Learn to read, then come and join the adult discussion.

@kazelee I suggest you close this thread before I start exposing idiocy left, right and centre.

If you would actually take the time to look, you'd find they actually do provide the raw data, as well as processed data, as well as the results of various climate models. Those preprocessing checks you mentioned are simply an attempt to catch errors in communication between the individual weather stations and the central database. In other words, they aren't trying to change the data coming from the stations, they are attempting to ensure that the data they receive and the data actually recorded by the station are the same.

So, I'm not sure how much more raw you could want it. Unless by "raw" you mean "wrong".

Edit: Argh, 4 minutes Blahah! 4 measly minutes!

Blahah Wrote:Learn to read, then come and join the adult discussion.

I refuse to take that kind of abuse. If the moderators here won't do anything about it,I refuse to take part in a discussion that stoops to this level.

If you try to take part in a discussion in which world food security, resource stability and many other crucial support systems for human life are genuinely at stake because people are misled by those who jump carelessly into the debate, taking sides without bothering to research properly, you can expect to get ejected. Sorry for being rude, but I think you're deplorable for trying to deny climate change so carelessly.

wccrawford Wrote:

Blahah Wrote:Learn to read, then come and join the adult discussion.

I refuse to take that kind of abuse. If the moderators here won't do anything about it,I refuse to take part in a discussion that stoops to this level.

Ah, dammit, this was a Poe, wasn't it? I recognize the classic "thread bail because it burns to channel such potent stupid" technique. I've used it many times myself.

Honestly, I should have caught it when you made reference to the science being bunk if scientists can't answer EVERY question, since that sort of qualification would also invalidate pretty much all modern scientific theory in every field.

Blahah Wrote:@Yonosa an inconvenient truth has nothing to do with climate science. It's a movie by a politician. I hope you're being sarcastic otherwise you're making yourself sound really, really stupid.

I am talking about the fact that if you say the word climate change to a large portion of Americans they will cite this horrible documentary(or something else heard through the mass media, which is again also usually based on...). Also, the climate change/global warming issue whatever you want to call it is very much a political move, if you don't believe so then you haven't done your homework. But then again you're the expert.

Climate change is a physical phenomenon, but what you are talking about is how various parties have climbed on the climate change bandwagon for their own benefit, especially politically. That has nothing to do with the validity of the science. I agree that the whole subject has been over-politicised on both sides.

It's really unfortunate that An Inconvenient Truth is cited so often, it just gives climate deniers another distraction to rant about.

Yonosa Wrote:

Blahah Wrote:@Yonosa an inconvenient truth has nothing to do with climate science. It's a movie by a politician. I hope you're being sarcastic otherwise you're making yourself sound really, really stupid.

I am talking about the fact that if you say the word climate change to a large portion of Americans they will cite this horrible documentary(or something else heard through the mass media, which is again also usually based on...). Also, the climate change/global warming issue whatever you want to call it is very much a political move, if you don't believe so then you haven't done your homework. But then again you're the expert.

Personally, I'm all for trying to regulate the environment, but I hate the way the debate is framed in current political discourse. It's all like, ooh, waaah, we gotta save the Earth guys! Screw that hippy bullshit. My argument? Make nature our bitch. Why? Because **** you nature, that's why. You say you've got a natural warming cycle? Well, not anymore you don't! Oh, you're cooling now? Well turn the factories up to eleven, 'cause we're turning the sky into fire!

Humanity rules, Nature droolz!

Blahah Wrote:

wccrawford Wrote:"These reviews include preprocessing checks on source data"

Not 'raw'.

You clearly didn't read the page. The data is published raw. The data is also checked before publication - those are the preprocessing checks which you randomly picked out to support your pathetic non-argument.

Learn to read, then come and join the adult discussion.

@kazelee I suggest you close this thread before I start exposing idiocy left, right and centre.

Blahblah, if anyone is any of the things you are saying it is you. You are clearly unwillingly to even listen to the other side's perspective. Rather than just call others names, and insult people. How about you counter their arguments with educated responses.
For instane humans evolved during a peak period of CO2, a peak much much higher than where we are now. Not to mention that the most CO2 dense regions on the planet(rainforests) are packed with more biodiversity than any other place on earth. Needless to say there are a large number of people who disagree with you on this issue, and without showing respect to them you will never sway them to your beliefs. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary of what you say so if you can't either discredit nor effectively counter it than how about sitting it out instead of posting insults.

But this is already too big of a waste of time for me. I will not repost in this topic.

Blahah Wrote:Climate change is a physical phenomenon, but what you are talking about is how various parties have climbed on the climate change bandwagon for their own benefit, especially politically. That has nothing to do with the validity of the science. I agree that the whole subject has been over-politicised on both sides.

It's really unfortunate that An Inconvenient Truth is cited so often, it just gives climate deniers another distraction to rant about.

One last post.
I don't deny climate change. I just don't believe it is man made. I believe it is primarily attributed to the sun. (And natural changes here on the earth also of course)For instance this year was very cold, and it just happens to be the low period of the Solar Cycle. Not to mention we universally have colder years during this time of the cycle. I think people look too much at the lampshade and not enough at the lightbulb.

But one question to you BlahBlah, how much of CO2 is even produced as a result of people?

I will just post it here, it is something like 7%, I might put my reference here later, but I am doing my reviews right now don't have the time to.

Interesting....

@Blahah

Chill with the insults, brah. Whether you know your topic or not it's just counterproductive.

I don't really know which side to believe in the climate change thing, but there is one thing I want to say.
If you want to fix the climate, start with the worst offenders. I mean just look at China. Their country is covered by clouds of pollution, yet Americans are told that we need to make significant changes in our lifestyle that will make a rather small difference, comparatively.

wccrawford Wrote:While I'll give you points for finally bringing that only report that might actually convince me it's happening, they still don't address the fact that CO2 levels usually -follow- temperature changes, instead of leading them. There is considerable doubt that CO2 has an effect on temperature.

Note that this report is all based on pre-2009, likely "fixed" data. See: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2...facts.html

IMO, screw the Kyoto protocols, we should be looking to China's One-Child Policy as an eco-friendly example. Lowering the population is the real key to saving the planet.

I just found a site with some cited counter-arguments to skeptics.

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Please let me know if anyone finds this useful or not useful.

@Yonosa I'm perfectly happy to listen to anyone who brings themself up to speed with current climate science before trying to say it is all false. Both you and wccrawford in this thread spouted a bunch of sensationalist nonsense without any regard whatsoever for facts. I countered both of your arguments with accurate responses. I don't know where you are getting your ideas from, but they are fanciful. I repeat my earlier request that people wishing to distrust a worldwide consensus by professional climatologists on the issue of climate change LEARN THE SCIENCE before trying to argue with it. Your points are nonsense. Allow me to explain (and, to get the discussion off on the right foot, I will reference all the way):

Yonosa Wrote:For instane humans evolved during a peak period of CO2, a peak much much higher than where we are now.

Are you talking about the modern human (sub)species, Homo sapiens sapiens? We evolved around 50,000 years ago (http://goo.gl/3YiV). If you're talking about archaic Homo sapiens, the earliest records are between 400,000 to 250,000 years ago (same ref as previous). Today, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is ~388ppm (parts per million) (source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#global). Between 400,000 and 1,000 years ago, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was never higher than 300ppm. See for yourself:

and...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...2-417k.png

In fact, the last time atmospheric CO2 concentrations were as high as they are today was 15,000,000 years ago (http://goo.gl/fZ1G).

So, whether you made up the idea that humans evolved in higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than we have in the modern atmosphere, or whether you got the information from somewhere else, it is completely false.

Next point:

Yonosa Wrote:Not to mention that the most CO2 dense regions on the planet(rainforests) are packed with more biodiversity than any other place on earth.

The most CO2 dense regions on earth are most certainly not tropical rainforests. If you understood the basic principles of life (which, at least in my country, are taught to 11 year olds at school) you would know that photosynthesis builds organic molecules by fixing CO2 (http://goo.gl/133O). This means they USE UP atmospheric CO2 and store it in sugars and starches (such as cellulose and lignin - the stuff which makes wood). The primary productivity rate (i.e. the rate at which the plants grow) in tropical rainforests is very high because of the warm, moist climate. This means that CO2 is used up faster in tropical rainforests than anywhere else on earth.

If you've got a source for this claim I'll be happy to correct them.

I'm sorry that this is a waste of time for you. It's using up (not wasting) my time, too. I've got exams in less than a week., but I'm now taking the time to post educated answers to your uneducated speculation. This is an important subject - people who understand what's going on know that climate change threatens much of what makes life pleasant today. If the most extreme possible cases of climate change come to pass, war, famine and widespread misery are not unlikely. It is completely unacceptable for you to publicly argue against climate change if you don't even have a high-school science education, are unwilling to really research the subject before posting about it, or if you don't have the reasoning capability to draw safe conclusions from the facts. I and thousands of others decided to dedicate our lives to furthering science in order to prevent humanity from failing (and indeed to progress it). Being so casual in your disregard for fact is childish and makes light of a very serious situation. It's actually a real shame that anyone has to spend time condescending to climate deniers - intelligent people could be much more productive elsewhere if you weren't creating this problem.