Printable View
http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/LG07.JPG
Another interesting graphic which shows the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and temperature and the correlation between that big burning thing in the sky which I believe is called "the sun" and northern hemisphere temperatures.
I think that people saying that (for example) recent summers in the UK, whether they've been unusually hot or unusually wet, are examples of the effects of climate change are barking up the wrong tree. This surely isn't how the effects of climate change work. We won't necessarily notice the difference on a year-by-year basis — maybe, even, on a decade-by-decade basis. However, as I said, I am willing to trust those scientists — a very significant body of opinion, after all — who believe that global warming does exist and needs to be tackled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
You say that scientists are always learning. This is true. I believe that the discovery of climate change as a phenomenon is part of that learning process. I do not believe that saying it all comes down to natural phenomena represents a scientific advance (not that every advance is accurate, of course). It's hardly anything new under the sun.
Or as silly as everyone who, today, doesn't believe that global warming exists or is a man-made phenomenon in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This could very well be the case too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
By the way, may I ask whether you reckon you would feel exactly the same way if you weren't an enthusiast of cars, motorsport and aircraft? It seems to me that a lot of people (not necessarily you, I hasten to add) who are interested in such things do not believe in global warming, which cannot be a coincidence.
)perhaps they find it easier to ask that there things be banned if there isn't so much of an impact upon them :) i've not said it's necessarily incorrect to assume that we are having an impact upon the climate but that there should be balance to the argument and i honestly don't think there is balance in the argument. I think it's possible this might not be a false alarm but think we should be cautious before we go believing the studies of what is a rather a new science (climate study) as it's not like gravity where you can see how fast an object falls and them somehow measure it. Climate is far more complex and beyond our understanding in the way that it works. I also think that mankind has a rather self indulgent hope that we can actually alter something as complex and vast as the world's climate but at the end the day we're an insignificant dot on the history of this planet.
Doesn't that graph show an overall correlation between CO2 levels and temperature?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I don't mind listening to people who believe there is no connection between CO2 levels and global temperatures. However I would very much like to see evidence that there is NO correlation. The scientific community is very much united regarding global warming and its correlation with CO2 production, and those that disagree tend to have other agendas, ie their funding comes from groups with interests in dissociating CO2 from global warming.
Most of the arguments seem to revolve around 'maybe the scientists are wrong'. I'm afraid science doesn't work like that. You have to present evidence to explain exactly WHY the current prevailing thinking in scientific circles are wrong. Please present this evidence.
I have no doubt the climate is changing. I will not argue that at all. BDunnell refers to "a significant body" that feels it is being caused by man while choosing to ignore or dismiss "a significant body" that feels it is not caused by man. The answer for most people is merely what side do you want to believe because it seems to be a tied score.
For me, the tie breaker is simple. Has the planet undergone climate change in the past, before man's industrialization? Answer, yes. Can science prove that the climate has changed in the past before our influence? Answer, yes.
Conclusion: Any climate change happening now is due to natural influences.
The short painfully simple answer: the climate is changing because it can.
I would, could, and will argue that those that argue for man-induced global warming also have their own little funding agendas they want to see come true. Anyway you look at it, there is money to be made in heaps and piles for the scientific community if they can sell the scare. Neither side is lilly white on the money aspect, so unless this "very much united community" is willing to donate their time and work for free, I'd leave the money out of it. As for government, this is just what they love! A chance to grow ever larger while exerting their ever expanding control over their flocks of sheep as they assure their lambs they are in control and will soon have this problem stopped in it's tracks just like they eliminated the drug problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I must say there is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Bit of a laugh I must say. Except for those that will be affected by AGW that is.
I try to always keep an open mind about this, but I am yet to find an argument that disputes AGW that is real. If anyone would like a hand with some research please let me know. I am by no means an expert, but I do try to learn what I can.
No one here is disputing "global warming": that's something you measure. Temperatures are higher, and that's it. The whole debate is about whether that temperature increase is caused by humans or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
Definitely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
The graph shows a constant increase of CO2, while it shows a fluctuation of temperature and insolation (and these two do look correlated from the graph).
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-6880767e7966
More scientist are joining the ranks of Skeptics according to July 2007 review of peer-reviewed scientific journals 2004-2007
AGW is anthropogenic global warming ie. man made global warming. I know the temperatures are increasing.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
The graph you posted is interesting. It shows a steady increase in CO2 and a steady increase in temperature. You have to look at trends. And also the graph is misleading because it is missing a few years.