Anthropogenic Climate Change

[Sam]

IPCC don't carry out their own original research. You can discount them and anything they claim to "contribute" to AGW.

Thats non-sensical in the extreme. The IPCC Assesment Reports are some of the most thorough and well funded reviews of climate science available. Whats more is that these revies are carried out largely by scientists involved in the field.

To simply flipantly discount them as you have done shows nothing except your pre-existing bias and willful ignorance of the plethora of information they provide.

Can you provide me some links please?

With all due respect Welsh Cake, I told you exactly where you can find the information you asked for. I have no intention of trawling Google Scholar, Web of Science and other Catalogues to provide links to primary papers you might not even be able to access due to the requirement for subscription.

If you'd like to actually start by giving the IPCC reports the chance they deserve you can start here;

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...orts.shtml

Otherwise, I'd kindly ask you to do your own research and not expect me to lead you by the hand.

Okay, let me rephrase the question again then, how do you differentiate between a natural climate trend and a trend induced by anthropogenic climate change?

I'm not asking for indisputable evidence that we are actually affecting our climate because all that seems to be on offer is a few skewed graphs and the assertions of governmental department cronies looking to place new legislation and so-called green taxes on an already failing industry.

I'm asking you to falsify AGW. If you can't then there's nothing to debate - climate change is dead.

A natural climate trend is presumed to be one which is within the bounds of variations observed in various paleo-climatic records. The anthropogencialy affected trend in the climate (over the past 100 years or so) is largely outside of variations previously observed and correlates excellently with the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2. Given the unusual change in the climate and the correlation with anthropogenic activity it is completely sound to consider this a non-natural trend.

Again, you claim that all that is on offer is "skewed graphs from governmental department cronies" but I seriously doubt you have even taken the time to review the evidences presented by them. Your argument plainly reveals your bias on the issue to the extent where I doubt you'd accept any evidence presented if it was even remotely funded by a government or national organisation. Would you be so kind as to tell me how the data are 'skewed' by them? Or why if all that is being saught is 'new-legislation' and 'green taxes' has every large scale summit on AGW failed to produce measureable results?

I think your deluding yourself if you believe that the ideals and morals of concerned scientists and stakeholders affects the decisions of governments plainly operating under realpolitik. It's clear that if possible, governments around the world would carry on the current state of affairs indefinetely and would like to reduce constraints on economic growth not increase them.

Falsfying AGW is not a complex task, you can demonstrate that the current observed changes in the climate are unconnected with anthropgenic activity. Alternatively, demonstrate that the levels of variation we are seeing can equally be attributed to climate feedbacks or other natural phonomena. Scientists who oppose AGW theories have tried to do this but so far cannot conclusively show any of it.

How did they work that out? Aren't there more sheep than people in Wales?

It's standard practice to present measures of a nation in terms of a Gross and Per Capita figure. In terms of CO2 contribution, the total CO2 output from anthropogenic activity is divided by the population. This gives an estimate of the lifestyle of the people in said country and their energy and material usages.

No, "partially responsible" couldn't be further more the truth. What else is the driving force behind our weather climate if it's not our planet's own parent star? It's certainly not going to be Proxima Centauri now it is?

The sun provides the incoming energy flux to the planet, agreed. This incoming energy flux unevenly heats the Earths surface establishing air circulation in the climatic cells, agreed. Ths sun is such a way is a primary factor in the earths climate but it is by no means the only one worth consdiering as you seem to believe. As I've said, the variations in solar radiative forcing are no where near the scale of changes in the climate and do not correspond with temperature increases etc ...

There are other factors in the climate system which affect it. You need to accept that if you want to understand the basics of climate science.

Seriously, cut out your nonsense with allegations of me being underhanded. And with all due respect the IPCC can take their tax-payers' millions and fuck off*. They don't carry out any original research. They don't help your argument in any way. They don't even monitor climate related data or parameters.

*Actually, I think the US Government are basically telling them to "fuck off" by stopping their funding:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/...g-of-ipcc/

So, scientists reviewing and compiling the work of other scientists in the same field is now not proper practice? Taking global research on the climate system and presenting it all for federal and public consumption is a bad thing?

Of course pointing someone to the most thourough review of relevant literature is helpful, not accepting that is your perogative but don't then turn around and claim no one is offering you the eveidence.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, unfortunately I don't see the logic in your position.

Cheers

Sam