Good source of climate change data

[Anomalocaris]

don't know. Some people just don't care about evidence. Some people are afraid of the consequences and choose to beleive its not happeneing. Others focus on the argument against. The reasons are probably as varied as the opinions on the subject out there.

Hmmm, you seem to dismiss milankovitch cycle out of hand based on your misunderstanding that it marginalize the role of GHG, until it was represented to you that it in fact seem to favor antropogenic climate change.

Let's say antropogenic climate change, if valid, would present an argument critical to winning public support for a conservationist agenda you strongly favor.

But a researcher presents a large body of scientifically valid and compelling evidence against antropogenic climate change, and thereby making it highly probable that antropogenic climate change is wrong. Would you acccept that antropogenic warming is thereby discredited, and conceed your agenda should not be supported at least from that quarter, or would you ignore the development, argue against the motive of the research, so as to prevent your agenda from being robbed of its critical, but now invalid, support?

[ib.me.ub]

Not at all. I would actually agree with milankovich cycle in terms of process. I was arguing against your claim that we should be in a cooling period.

As I have said before, I firmly beleive that humans are causing the planet to warm faster. But to tell you the honest truth, I don't really worry about it that much any more. I think the term "im slightly over it" comes to mind. If climate change is made made or not, I still support pollution reduction. A clean future is much more appealing to myself. .

In terms of human induced climate change & your last question, it dosen't really matter what I think, it matters what World governments think. At the present point in time, they beleive that climate change is caused by humans. You would think that World governments would be quite well informed? or not?

[popeyespappy]

Not at all. I would actually agree with milankovich cycle in terms of process. I was arguing against your claim that we should be in a cooling period.

Our current location in the Milankovitch cycle is 6,000 years into a cooling cycle that should last another 23,000 years. The models say that, anthropogenic forcing aside, the current interglacial period is going to last another 50,000 to 650,000 years.

Here’s an older peer reviewed source for the current cooling trend in the cycle.

Model predictions. Radiometric ages for six of the climatic events listed in Table 2 were used in tuning the model. Calculated ages for the six other events may therefore be considered as predictions to be checked against the results of independent research. In addition, the model contains a prediction for the course of future climate (Fig. 7). Specifically, we take the model output to indicate that orbital forcing will act over the next 23,000 years to continue the general cooling trend that began some 6000 years ago. This effect must be superimposed on variations that will occur at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, and on anthropogenic effects such as a possible warming due to an increase in carbon dioxide levels. This conclusion is robust against substantial parametric adjustments (Figs. 4 and 5) and consistent with many (21, 59, 66) but not all (54, 67) earlier predictions.

Also a non peer reviewed explanation of Milankovitch cycles including a description of where in the cycle we are now available here.

http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/...limate.htm

You would think that World governments would be quite well informed? or not?

I wish...

[ib.me.ub]

ok, so it's actually worse than I thought then.

You would think that World governments would be quite well informed? or not?

I wish...

They understand, but choose do nothing about it. The system is firmly in place. At least here in Australia, the current government is making an effort to do something. Even so, without a World Wide effort, nothing will change.

[popeyespappy]

I’m afraid you underestimate the pig-headed ignorance of American politicians. Many of them are in complete denial of anthropogenic global warming thanks in no small part to a well funded professional disinformation campaign Hermann Göring would be proud of.

[Anomalocaris]

You meant Josef Goebbels. Herr Reichsmarschall Goering couldn't disinformation his way out of a dry can of petrol.

[popeyespappy]

Yea Goebbels... It’s hell getting old. The CRS is getting worse every day.

[Welsh cake]

It includes not only summaries of the current scientific consensus on global warming but also potential impacts and suggestions as to how to proceed in the future. As a global warming skeptic who is not happy with your government’s policy decisions concerning global warming, I would think you should be interested in what those policy makers are being told. Apparently you’re not though and would prefer to simply whine and cry about it.

I don't care. Scientific consensus can be corrupted by political motives as we all know. This government's budget wants to invest in our aging infrastructure but billions of pounds are required that they don't currently have, so how do they balance the books? Turn to the taxpayer yet again? Or how about introduce new hefty carbon taxes onto UK steelmakers therefore industry and the local economy all suffer in the long-run?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12851188
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12847929

When people's livelihoods are at stake I disbelive ANY claim until there is sufficient evidence.

There’s a thread in this forum not too far from here where you claim, “Oh well since we know the government's preference is to fund any support of global warming theory let's continue to ignore the giant Elephant in the room a little longer shall we?” right below a big picture of the sun.

Because the sun is, and always has been, responsible for our climate and weather. Go read a science book.

Void presented a bunch of data that showed that claim to be false. You promptly ignored it.

There's a difference between ignoring what one asserts as evidence and dismissing it altogether. He presented some very unreliable data indeed, some of it ripped from Wikipedia that completely ignores the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which effects were felt worldwide, global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C, what did the graph show? Temperatures rose by 0.5 °C, like magic.

You made the claim that instrument temperature has only been available since 1880, and that was not sufficient to provide a basis for claims of anthropogenic global warming.

That's because we've only had instrumental temperature recording since 1880 when there are possible long-term solar cycles with our sun to consider that may be caused by magnetic instabilities inside its core, if so, we're looking at time periods into the hundreds of thousands of years.

You totally ignore the fact that reliable paleoclimate data is available for the 400,000 years plus.

Citation please, since you enjoy "sharing information without discussion".

You have also made an unsupported assertion that anything related to the IPCC is unreliable. All I can say about that is LOLOL!

Now you are talking shit. IPCC does not carry out their own original research. They are an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. Their predictions are horribly inaccurate, Rajendra Pachauri admitted not so long ago he blundered by wrongly asserting the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035, yet refused to step down from chair of the IPCC, and to add insult to injury he then attacked those who criticised their claims as using "voodoo science".

Sorry you feel that way, but the IPCC will be discounted every time we have any discussion on climate change in much the same way the Discovery Institute will be discounted whenever a theist starts up another "creationism vs. evolution" thread.

Sorry, it’s not my job to provide you with peer reviewed papers.

I thought you started a thread with the intention of sharing information did you not?

Zen Badger’s link was to an article about global warming on Mars. The inference being that if Mars is warming too and the only thing Earth and Mars have in common is the Sun the cause must be the Sun. I provided a link to the original article that served as a source for Zen’s article. I also provided an explanation of why the original conclusion that Mars was warming along with the Earth was flawed.

Mars has some climate similarities yes, but it is senseless to compare the two - Mars is only 11% of Earth's mass and 50% farther from the Sun than our own planet, has no evidence of a structured global magnetic field, or even a magnetosphere at all.

Let's stick with Earth's climate please.

Guess I've been reading too many articles by anthropogenic global warming skeptics.

I doubt that very much.

[djrams80]

hmm, ok, interesting, cheers. I thought you were a skeptic.

Frankly I don’t get it. Being a skeptic doesn’t mean denial of a large body of evidence simply because it favors a position you don’t like.

LOL! Exactly! There is a line where these Global Warming deniers cross from healthy skeptic, to the tin foil hat club. The evidence is so overwhelming, they have to convince themselves that NASA scientists put out completely fraudulent, manipulated data. That's just nonsense.

[Autumnlicious]

Lessons learned so far in climate modeling class - it is so far impossible to model small phenomena past a few weeks and the best we can do with the massive scale of El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is predict up to six months. But even that becomes iffy, as minor differences in initial conditions diverge completely ~6 months as a prediction.

The more general you are with climate, the chances that you are 'correct' goes up, while precision drops like a rock.