Originally posted by lemon limeWho presented this evidence, where?
I'm not a mind reader. What answer are you looking for and/or will find acceptable?
Or maybe we aren't talking about the same thing. This is what I was talking about...
"I'm just going by what the climate change experts say is the cause. If they say increased levels of CO2 causes warming, then how do they account for evidence to the contrary? [b]They were the ones who presented this evidence..."[/b]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraVery well then, I'll search for the specific information you and twhitehead would like to see for yourselves... or would not like to see, whatever the case may be. In the meantime...
Who presented this evidence, where?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html#.U9BNgONdVWI
This next one has boat loads of charts and graphs...
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=371
More news about the Climategate scandal...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
(I'd forgotten it was called Climategate)
Climategate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
This next link deals specifically with semantics: global warming vs climate change...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110308173242.htm
With this one I'm expecting the source attacked and content ignored.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/20/un-climate-change-expert-reveals-bias-in-global-warming-report/
Originally posted by lemon limeThe first link says in the first sentence that the notion that atmopsheric CO2 causes warming is not disproven.
Very well then, I'll search for the specific information you and twhitehead would like to see for yourselves... or would not like to see, whatever the case may be. In the meantime...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html#.U9BN ...[text shortened]... -new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
(I'd forgotten it was called Climategate)
I hope I don't have to explain why global warming sceptic websites don't count as primary sources of information.
The third link is not related to the discussion at hand.
Anything else?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHe and highly opinionated laypeople like him always seem to have the extreme arrogance to think they know a lot better about scientific matters like this than us scientists/scientifically-minded who have actually bothered to properly study science. Perhaps we should just ignore him while he lets of steam?
The first link says in the first sentence that the notion that atmopsheric CO2 causes warming is not disproven.
I hope I don't have to explain why global warming sceptic websites don't count as primary sources of information.
The third link is not related to the discussion at hand.
Anything else?
Originally posted by humyIf we tightly close our eyes, and conjecture hard enough, we should be able to get those tiny little CO2 gas bubbles to muscle their way up through ice core samples until they magically appear before periods of global warming. And how (you may ask) would we be able to do this? Because with science anything is possible!
He and highly opinionated laypeople like him always seem to have the extreme arrogance to think they know a lot better about scientific matters like this than us scientists/scientifically-minded who have actually bothered to properly study science. Perhaps we should just ignore him while he lets of steam?
And if you have no idea what this means, then you obviously haven't read the literature... pro or con.
Originally posted by humySpeculating on how it might be possible (unconfirmed) for tiny bubbles of CO2 gas to migrate up through solid ice is how global climate experts are able to "see" where they want the bubbles to have been... instead of seeing them where they are found.
He and highly opinionated laypeople like him always seem to have the extreme arrogance to think they know a lot better about scientific matters like this than us scientists/scientifically-minded who have actually bothered to properly study science. Perhaps we should just ignore him while he lets of steam?
If global climate experts cannot see what is there but can see what isn't there....
... define delusional
Originally posted by lemon limeSome migration of CO2 is (theoretically) possible, but not enough to entirely pass through an ice core sample representing a period of global warming.
Speculating on how it might be possible (unconfirmed) for tiny bubbles of CO2 gas to migrate up through solid ice is how global climate experts are able to "see" where they want the bubbles to have been... instead of seeing them where they were found.
If global climate experts cannot see what is there but [b]can see what isn't there....
... define delusional[/b]
More likely the increase occurred in the midst (or near the end) of a period of global warming. This would suggest periods of warming are actually the cause (not the result) of increased levels of CO2 gas in the atmosphere.
CO2 is a tiny percentage of all greenhouse gasses. So it isn't likely a percentage point or two more (or three, or four) is able to all by itself (and with no other considerations) initiate a drastic change in climate... one way or the other.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"I hope I don't have to explain why global warming sceptic websites don't count as primary sources of information ... Anything else?"
The first link says in the first sentence that the notion that atmopsheric CO2 causes warming is not disproven.
I hope I don't have to explain why global warming sceptic websites don't count as primary sources of information.
The third link is not related to the discussion at hand.
Anything else?
It's in the environment.
Originally posted by lemon lime
Some migration of CO2 is (theoretically) possible, but not enough to entirely pass through an ice core sample representing a period of global warming.
More likely the increase occurred in the midst (or near the end) of a period of global warming. This would suggest periods of warming are actually the cause (not the result) of increased levels of ...[text shortened]... th no other considerations) initiate a drastic change in climate... one way [b]or the other.[/b]
More likely the increase occurred in the midst (or near the end) of a period of global warming. This would suggest periods of warming are actually the cause (not the result) of increased levels of CO2 gas in the atmosphere.
Here you display your total ignorance of the current scientific analysis. That evidence showed that, it isn't an increase in CO2 that generally triggered those particular warming periods BUT, at the oceans warm, they release more CO2 ( from CO2 that was resolved in the sea water ) which then causes further warming which than warms the oceans more which then causes them to release even more CO2 that causes further warming and so on.
Computer models prove that this must be the case because, if the warming effect of CO2 is not factored into the models, the models predict less warming than what actually happened after the start of each warming period.
This makes your talk of migration of CO2 through the ice core totally irrelevant because NOBODY needs to claim significant migration of CO2 through the ice core to explain anything.
So, you are forming opinions from ignorance. You really should study the science properly before forming any opinion on it else do NOT form an opinion on it! Please don't form opinion on things you don't know nor understand.
Hi guys,
Believe it or not, this is my very first ever posting in the Science Forum! Good to see some familiar names in different settings.
Also, believe it or not, I have now waded through this entire thread because I am actually quite interested in climate change and/or global warming since the first Rio conference (which I was invited to but could not attend). I would like to add the following few observations.
1. Yes, there has been an official practice to move away from the words "global warming" to "climate change". The reasons (as twhitehead has correctly pointed out) is that CC means much more than GW, since it reflects extremes in the weather, and NOT just a warming. HOWEVER, I cannot put my finger on any document or even pronouncement where the changeover was proposed or encouraged. It just sort of happened. But you will not find any reputable scientist on any platform today still talking about Global Warming.
2. Yes, there WAS the scandal that LemonLime referred to. It consisted of some lower level scientists hiding material that would have (in their opinion) not fitted the "official" model that they were promoting. The facts emerged from e-mails written to each other, and indicated that they were intent on promoting the pro-global warming (at the time) agenda. Denialists jumped up and down with joy and used this to discredit the entire body of science published so far! This caused a significant, but temporary, embarrassment to the scientfic community that was involved in pointing out the seriousness of Climate Change. Fortunately, it was soon discovered that the data which the culprits wanted to hide, was actually NOT serious, and could easily be accounted for (such as the cool weather in the title of this thread!) So the whole saga WAS, as somebody here suggested, a storm in a tea cup. Only hard core Denialists still refer to it today. (Not dissimilar to Creationists still referring to the Piltdown Man hoax in an attempt to discredit the entire field of evolutionary sciences.)
Just wanted to add my two bits worth.
CJ
Originally posted by CalJustActually you can't know that. LemonLime was not forthcoming about what scandal he was referring to. When asked for details, he feigned astonishment that I had not heard of it, but instead of providing details, he just picked the first website he could find with a likely looking title, then when questioned on it tried to distance himself from it. Then when pushed further, he got quite upset and told me to leave him alone. At no point did he ever tell me what the scandal he was referring to was about or even when it supposedly took place.
2. Yes, there WAS the scandal that LemonLime referred to.
Originally posted by twhiteheadCan't know WHAT?
Actually you can't know that.
There WAS a scandal, as I described it, probably about ten years ago or so, which was fairly widely reported, maybe not in Zambia, but certainly SA.
I obviously assumed that that was the scandal that Lemon lime referred to, since there hasn't been a similar scandal since.
It would not be unusual for you not to have been aware of it, because it was really only of interest to the UNFCCC community.
It is also not unusual for any Denialist of anything (climate change, evolution) to be vaguely AWARE of a revolt or upset in the camp, without knowing the full details, and that is probably why LL could not give you the full facts.
Perhaps the slightly embarrassing thing for you is to have to admit that something DID happen somewhere that you personally where unaware of?
😉