The issue as to whether the current warming is natural or man-made might be getting closer to an answer. As our (or scientists) understanding of climate processes improves and as more information and hard data (like temperature readings, wind speeds, precipitation data, and also data from the satellites orbiting the sun) comes in, there should be better and less equivocal results. For instance, a recent analysis of temperature data covering 50 years, and spanning 4.5 solar cycles (the 11-year sunspot cycles), supports current climate models and supports the prediction that future warming will increase. It turns out, at least if these guys have done the analysis correctly (something we just have to assume, unless we want to try repeating their efforts to see if the same conclusions are reached) that the solar variation over each of these 11-year cycles causes a larger swing in atmospheric temperature than previously believed. And because the sun is now at the end of a cycle, the next one will illustrate how these solar cycles influence the current forcing, due to higher than normal CO2 levels (thanks to us humans). If these guys are right, the next five years will either confirm or deny their predictions, which are that “strong warming of the atmosphere” is expected over the next five years, as the sun’s output increases during the cycle.
Just how long we should wait around before any “really convincing” results turn up, is I think the real issue. Then again there probably isn’t a lot we can do, or are prepared to do, to mitigate warming. Nature will definitely sort this one out, one way or the other.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Agree completely that this needs to be debated rationally.

No where have I said that climate science is rubbish, I HAVE called those who declare that man is causing global warming many names tho. As you said, there are no absolutes in science and what gets my goat more then anything is those who proclaim absolutes.

The global warming hysteria is just a way to make a buck in my opinion. Scientists are being well funded for studies that back up their claims while any scientists who tries to inject some common sense into the debate is shouted down. This is why you are seeing such a backlash I believe.

My opinion on global warming is that it is a natural warming period for this earth, just as there was a natural cooling period decades ago (remember the coming ice age hysteria of the 70′s?). My mind could most definitely be changed once the politicizing and hysteria gives way to rational debate and science, but until then I just see another fear mongering crowd trying to make a living off of the fear they create.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I agree that politicisation and the rise of the environazis are issues. Then again, with global warming and the perceived threat to not just our way of life, but a whole lot of life itself, I personally am not surprised that a lot of different groups are jumping on bandwagons. We need to debate this rationally and not recourse to wild claims and equally wild counter-claims. I believe in science. People who claim that climate science is rubbish need to explain why it is, whereas other science, say astronomy for example, isn’t rubbish. Why the distinction? All science is based on uncertainty. We can only claim to “understand” some observation when we have developed a model which “explains” it. But our model will only ever be an approximation of the underlying reality, we can refine and revise the models, and proclaim that they are good, or not so good explanations, beyond that, it seems that there are no really absolute truths, like the Victorian scientists used to believe. Just look at quantum dynamics if you want an example of how “approximate” the world is.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

That is exactly our point, the debate is NOT OVER! But environazi’s wish to proclaim it is and tell us we all need to fear man-made global warming.

Your side doesn’t have science to back them up anymore then ours does. For every study done that “proves” man-made global warming there are other studies that “proves” otherwise.

The environazi’s keep trying to tell us to drive a prius while they jet around in jets and pay $10,000 a month electric bills. They keep telling us it’s all our fault when nothing of the sort has been proven. They keep at it and the pushback is going to get even more intense.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

It strikes me that there is an apparent irrational aspect to all the quibbling and nay-saying going on in forums like this.
One can’t help noticing that you often use uncertainty and the fact that we still don’t know a whole lot about how our climate works to posit doubt about any warming trend, but use that very same uncertainty to support equally doubtful claims about what is “really happening”. Like the idiots who claim that global warming is “happening all over the solar system”, on the moon, on Pluto, and on Neptune’s moon Triton. I thought that climate change required a climate, which our moon doesn’t have, Pluto and Triton receive a very small fraction of the sun’s energy compared to our planet, so where is the parallel? There isn’t any. This is about as relevant as looking at some star and saying “I bet there’s a whole lot of warming going on around that one”. ??? What does it have to do with what is happening on planet earth? And where are the years of data from all those meteorological stations we put on all the planets (oh, sorry, we haven’t put any)…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Might want to have a look at this pdf document.

And before you go dismissing it as a product of energy industry funded research, keep something in mind. The energy industry has no vested interest in warming or cooling. They make money either way. If it is warming, they make money from energy used for air conditioning. If it is cooling, they make money from energy used for heating. What the energy industry wants is a clear picture of what is coming so they can allocate resources to the proper energy production mix to meet demand.

If there is any industry that wants a clear picture of what climate is doing, it is the industry that provides the power for climate control in residential and commercial space.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

saurabh, first of all, if the US, which represents quite a large area over quite a span of the Western Hemisphere from nearly the tropics to the Arctic hasn’t warmed at ALL since 1998, then it isn’t “global” warming, is it? And we can add to the fact that the Southern Hemisphere hasn’t warmed EITHER.

The majority of “global warming” seems to be coming from data from a very small number of countries. These countries have also experienced significant urbanization since WWII. China is a particular example. In order to calculate “global warming” station data from China and the former Soviet Union are included. The problem is that some of the stations that were quite rural only 20 years ago are now completely urbanized. A worse problem is that some of the stations have undergone undocumented moves. None of the Chinese data include the station metadata that document changes in location or the nature of the location itself. When you are looking at long term changes in the order of only one degree per century, these things are very important.

Basically, the “global” network is using garbage data and even in the US, the surfacestations.org project of Anthony Watts is showing that MOST recording sites do not meet the network’s own specifications for positioning requirements.

So not only has there been no warming, the data we are getting is too hot anyway because of recording temperatures in the middle of asphalt parking lots, on rooftops, next to incinerators and near jet aircraft parking areas.

All of the properly positioned sites show flat to cooling since 1998. Most of the world network is showing the result of urbanization near the recording stations, and not climate change.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“That study this stuff” and get wrong over and over again. Just say bah! you little sheepie.

Already dealt with your “this is a US mean only” crap on the last post which you ignored.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Crosspatch, you idiot, when are you going to understand the difference between a US mean and a global mean?

As to science being politicized – what do you saps think climatology is? Who do you think conducts this research? There are entire atmosphere & planetary sciences departments that study this stuff. Who do you think Hansen is? He’s not an “environmentalist”, he’s a scientist working for NASA.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The media has been downplaying the significance of a 0.15 degree “readjustment”. Here is what people need to understand: 0.15 degrees per decade is the approximate rate of the claimed “global warming” over the 20th century. Reducing those temps by 0.15 degrees COMPLETELY wipes out a decade’s worth of “warming”. What it means is that there has been absolutely none, zero, nada, zilch, squat “global warming” since 1998. Does everyone understand the significance of that? There HAS BEEN NO WARMING since 1998.

That is not a “minor” thing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0