Hurricane Sandy

[simmo]

Because we can analysis the earths weather cycles over millions of years through looking at things like ice core data which can tell us a lot about weather over a huge span of time. What is evident is that we are being 'kicked' out of a a natural cycle of climate through accelerated climatic change caused mainly through unprecedented levels of CO2 in the air. The isotopic signature of the extra levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are from fossil fuels. This is scientific fact as can be measured. What is also clear is that CO2 levels almost always lag behind climate change over thousands/millions of years, what is happening now is that CO2 levels are leading the change in the climate. We have departed the earths natural climatic cycle, and something like 97% of scientists agree on this.

Those skeptical about this established science are not 'skeptics', they are 'denialists' - because they are simply refusing to believe the evidence before them. Skeptic insinuates someone who is willing to question and is open to be convinced. A denialist is someone who simply will not accept the evidence.

Do you agree that climate can change naturally? For example going into and out of an ice age?

 

[perseus]

Do you agree that climate can change naturally? For example going into and out of an ice age?

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bold Seagull]

Do you agree that climate can change naturally? For example going into and out of an ice age?

If you couldn't infer that from the post of mine you have just quoted from, then we may as well end this chat now.

 

[simmo]

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am well aware of this, I am asking Bold Seagull whether he agrees that in the course of the earth's history, climate change on ALL the other previous occasions has occured naturally (i.e independant of man).

 

[simmo]

If you couldn't infer that from the post of mine you have just quoted from, then we may as well end this chat now.

All your evidence is about rising CO2 levels.

You and all other scientists are looking for a smoking gun for this climate change...and your smoking gun is rising CO2 levels caused by man. You are looking for something to blame when the fact is the smoking gun is nature itself, as it has been for all the other climate changes that the earth has gone through in it's 4.5 billion year history.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I am well aware of this, I am asking Bold Seagull whether he agrees that in the course of the earth's history, climate change on ALL the other previous occasions has occured naturally (i.e independant of man).

Of course you are.

 

[perseus]

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deep sea temperatures were a military secret until the end of the cold war.

 

[simmo]

Of course you are.

I am well aware of it, it is caused by the tilt of the earth's axis wobbling slightly over a long period of time, meaning the northern hemisphere tilts away from the sun and ice accumualted over the winter months cannot be thawed away in the summer months, leading to a permafrost.

A question for you, there have been warm and cold periods in the last 3000 years, Roman Warm period, Medieval Warm period, little ice age to name but three.

All of these were before the industrial revolution, what caused these climate changes?

 

[BigGully]

Because we can analysis the earths weather cycles over millions of years through looking at things like ice core data which can tell us a lot about weather over a huge span of time. What is evident is that we are being 'kicked' out of a a natural cycle of climate through accelerated climatic change caused mainly through unprecedented levels of CO2 in the air. The isotopic signature of the extra levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are from fossil fuels. This is scientific fact as can be measured. What is also clear is that CO2 levels almost always lag behind climate change over thousands/millions of years, what is happening now is that CO2 levels are leading the change in the climate. We have departed the earths natural climatic cycle, and something like 97% of scientists agree on this.

Those skeptical about this established science are not 'skeptics', they are 'denialists' - because they are simply refusing to believe the evidence before them. Skeptic insinuates someone who is willing to question and is open to be convinced. A denialist is someone who simply will not accept the evidence.

Dont be so pompous, you very well know that I could post a link and you a counter link to try to back up either of our positions, where on earth you have concluded 97% of the worlds scientists agree with your waffle I just do not know.

Climate is always at some point of a 'cycle', there has been nothing exceptional about the weather in my lifetime, maybe a the hurricane in 1987 but there was a worse storm in 1703, so I am not sure of any relevance when discussing climate change.

In my lifetime, there has been cold spells, mild spells and neither spells and this is likely to continue in the future.

You can embrace the spectre of future doom if you want, I will not.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Dont be so pompous, you very well know that I could post a link and you a counter link to try to back up either of our positions, where on earth you have concluded 97% of the worlds scientists agree with your waffle I just do not know.

Climate is always at some point of a 'cycle', there has been nothing exceptional about the weather in my lifetime, maybe a the hurricane in 1987 but there was a worse storm in 1703, so I am not sure of any relevance when discussing climate change.

In my lifetime, there has been cold spells, mild spells and neither spells and this is likely to continue in the future.

You can embrace the spectre of future doom if you want, I will not.

You're basing your opinion of global climate change on the weather you have personally experienced in your lifetime - that is your reference point, that's your counter argument to change that is being analysed on cycles over millions of years!?

 

[pb21]

To human contribution climate change deniers…

Why would the vast majority of scientists and governments be saying this if it wasn’t thought to be true?

Why do you believe that you are being lied to?

Do you agree that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

At what point would an increase in atmospheric CO2 lead to the climate changing?

 

[BigGully]

You're basing your opinion of global climate change on the weather you have personally experienced in your lifetime - that is your reference point, that's your counter argument to change that is being analysed on cycles over millions of years!?

So what are you telling me, that there will be climate change at some point within millions of years, you dont say.

I am saying that within 100's years our planets climate has been pretty constant, the very nature of climate itself is one of spells and periods.

You guys have used those spells and periods to try and back up your flawed science.

Relax kick of your shoes, man made climate change is a man made scam.

 

[perseus]

 

[BigGully]

To human contribution climate change deniers…

Why would the vast majority of scientists and governments be saying this if it wasn’t thought to be true?

Why do you believe that you are being lied to?

Do you agree that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

At what point would an increase in atmospheric CO2 lead to the climate changing?

Our contribution seems to be quite small and some say irrelevant.

I think the earths CO2 emission primarily come from our seas and our planets foliage.

C'mon the scientists, technologists and governments couldn't even predict the millienium bug accurately, my betamax video recorder was gonna wake up at midnight and come and eat our family !!!

Not all scientists are independent or actually very good.

 

[simmo]

To human contribution climate change deniers…

Why would the vast majority of scientists and governments be saying this if it wasn’t thought to be true?

Why do you believe that you are being lied to?

Do you agree that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

At what point would an increase in atmospheric CO2 lead to the climate changing?

Why would the vast majority of scientists and governments be saying this if it wasn’t thought to be true?
If they said nothing was happening i.e this was natural, their funding would be cut 95%.

Why do you believe that you are being lied to?
We are not being lied to, it is just they have not got a real clue what is going on, they change their story to change with their data. I can assure you when I was younger they were talking about global cooling. In my time I have heard, global cooling, global warming, global dimming and now it is a catch all phrase of climate change (which is a brilliant phrase for them to use because now whatever the freak weather i.e Sandy they can blame on this catch all phrase).

Do you agree that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Yes

At what point would an increase in atmospheric CO2 lead to the climate changing?
Who knows what real effect CO2 increasing has to the climate, it may be negligable compared to what nature can do, ie solar output, ocean currents, changes of wind speed and direction.

 

[Taybha]

Im suprised the yanks did'nt name this storm Ashley

 

[pb21]

Why would the vast majority of scientists and governments be saying this if it wasn’t thought to be true?
If they said nothing was happening i.e this was natural, their funding would be cut 95%.

Why do you believe that you are being lied to?
We are not being lied to, it is just they have not got a real clue what is going on, they change their story to change with their data. I can assure you when I was younger they were talking about global cooling. In my time I have heard, global cooling, global warming, global dimming and now it is a catch all phrase of climate change (which is a brilliant phrase for them to use because now whatever the freak weather i.e Sandy they can blame on this catch all phrase).

Do you agree that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Yes

At what point would an increase in atmospheric CO2 lead to the climate changing?
Who knows what real effect CO2 increasing has to the climate, it may be negligable compared to what nature can do, ie solar output, ocean currents, changes of wind speed and direction.

So, you are saying ‘who knows’ what effect humans increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has, implying you don’t know, but that the vast, vast, majority of well-respected scientists whose job it is too know are wrong when they say climate is changing as a result of humans increasing atmospheric CO2?!!!

These scientists are also lying because they will have their funding cut, despite the majority of them not working directly in the field.

So no one knows, it could be a correct theory or it could not, but we should just carry on regardless?!

 

[Bold Seagull]

Why would the vast majority of scientists and governments be saying this if it wasn’t thought to be true?
If they said nothing was happening i.e this was natural, their funding would be cut 95%.

Why do you believe that you are being lied to?
We are not being lied to, it is just they have not got a real clue what is going on, they change their story to change with their data. I can assure you when I was younger they were talking about global cooling. In my time I have heard, global cooling, global warming, global dimming and now it is a catch all phrase of climate change (which is a brilliant phrase for them to use because now whatever the freak weather i.e Sandy they can blame on this catch all phrase).

Do you agree that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Yes

At what point would an increase in atmospheric CO2 lead to the climate changing?
Who knows what real effect CO2 increasing has to the climate, it may be negligable compared to what nature can do, ie solar output, ocean currents, changes of wind speed and direction.

All your posts so far have pretty much been questions. I wish you could spend the time to research and try to answer these questions for yourself, or at least come to some decision based on more than just headline rhetoric. Global cooling for example, was a product of the sudden and huge volume of pollutants such as CFC's and aerosols we released into the air from around WWII which had a rapid effect in depleting the ozone layer (remember that!?). Once these were largely eliminated, the process they created i.e. cooling, acid rain etc. (all buzz words at the time) were reduced to an extent they were no longer relevant - the planet recovered. This in particular is a real and absolute example of how man created a climatic problem, changed it's habits, and eliminated the problem. This is not a myth, or some government taxation / science funding scam, this is measurable cause and effect science.

All your questions are relevant, you just seem reluctant to face the answers, or the attempts at finding answers. Following your final question above, you must surely want to find out if it's negligible or not, if you're accepting it is a consequence of man that could be altered by us if we had the desire?

 

[simmo]

So, you are saying ‘who knows’ what effect humans increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has, implying you don’t know, but that the vast, vast, majority of well-respected scientists whose job it is too know are wrong when they say climate is changing as a result of humans increasing atmospheric CO2?!!!

These scientists are also lying because they will have their funding cut, despite the majority of them not working directly in the field.

So no one knows, it could be a correct theory or it could not, but we should just carry on regardless?!

Not all scientists do agree that the increases in CO2 are as important, in repsect of climate change, as some make out it to be, as others have pointed out.

The number of scientists working globally concerning climate change must be phenomenominal!

Yep, don't you worry about a thing, the majority of the human race doesn't and it has gone from 1 billion to 7 billion in the last 120 years (during the time of unprecedented man made climate change!) so it doesn't seem to be a species on the brink of catastrophe to me.

 

[simmo]

All your posts so far have pretty much been questions. I wish you could spend the time to research and try to answer these questions for yourself, or at least come to some decision based on more than just headline rhetoric. Global cooling for example, was a product of the sudden and huge volume of pollutants such as CFC's and aerosols we released into the air from around WWII which had a rapid effect in depleting the ozone layer (remember that!?). Once these were largely eliminated, the process they created i.e. cooling, acid rain etc. (all buzz words at the time) were reduced to an extent they were no longer relevant - the planet recovered. This in particular is a real and absolute example of how man created a climatic problem, changed it's habits, and eliminated the problem. This is not a myth, or some government taxation / science funding scam, this is measurable cause and effect science.

All your questions are relevant, you just seem reluctant to face the answers, or the attempts at finding answers. Following your final question above, you must surely want to find out if it's negligible or not, if you're accepting it is a consequence of man that could be altered by us if we had the desire?

Well I answered all the questions in post 95 didn't I?

You agree then that the scientists keep on changing their mind about the situation. So what is to say they are right now, what is their story going to be in 2030 I wonder?

The last 100 years have supposed to have been the worst man made climate change ever according to you and other doom sayers....yet the human race has gone from 1 billion to 7 billion. Catastophe, man made or otherwise, what catastrophe?