Source = the IPCC. I can't remember the report number, but I shall check.
I think you'll find that there are some longer records than 160 years. Temperature reconstructions back to 1400 from grape harvest information (Chuine et al. 2004), number of snow days in Zurich back to 1690 (Pfister 1978 as cited in Bradley 1999), though this may well be associated with urbanisation (correlation is not causation etc etc). Not to mention the ice cores (vostok).
Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not there is a political "war" being fought around climate change, and the first casualty of any war is truth!
I partly blame the media. They create doco's designed to shock and scare instead of searching for the truth.
I also think that the scientists have a long way to go to actually understand climate change, in relative terms I believe they have only just realised the earth isn't flat.
Lead, follow or get the f*%! outa the way.
My concern was that the bearded guy (on the right, next to Eric Young) was full of his own opinions but continually talked over top of anybody who differed with his views, and he was/is a reviewer on the IPCC panel.
One eyed reviews = censorship!
And I was just waiting for the 'self-confessed confused' anti-sceptic dragon to state "can I just say this is the first time I have been on TV".
IPCC automatically invalidates the data. It has been produced to prove a point.
Your second paragraph does not prove the point you think it does. It confirms mine. Localised unreliable climate records do not present a case for global warming.
We've only been looking at the global macro climate since the late '70s. 30 years. Reliable weather data collection including barometric pressure, rainfall, sunlight hours, and so on has only been a feature of data collection for less than 200 years and only used for very localised weather prediction. Even then, weather prediction is still 50/50 in accuracy and you're trying to prove that we know enough and have enough data to confirm that we can absolutely predict what the global weather will look like in 100 years?
The single biggest issue in the "Global Warming/Climate Change" argument is its lack of the consistent application of scientific method to analyse data.
The cooler weather of the '90s can be attributed to Mt Pinatubo and extended La Nina weather patterns in the Pacific. A single eruption of a volcano like Pinatubo does more to cool the climate than anything humans have "done" since the Industrial Revolution. But as beardy sandal man tried to point out last night every time we think we've come up with a solution to a climate problem (sulphates in fuel causing acid rain in Europe) we find that we didn't know what we were talking about and we create another problem by changing fuel composition.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
Regardless of whether the science is correct or not, an interesting point made in the program is that the anti-C02 environ-mentalists are in essence "anti-human".
Their policies will condemn the developing world (in particular Africa) to an existence without electricity and the industry that this enables.
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
There are at least a dozen copies of the Global Warming Swindle (original version) available as Torrent downloads, and while you're at it download "PROOF THAT 'THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE' WAS A SCAM" which is an Aussie debate regarding the doco in which the Global Warming propaganderists do a better job of shooting themselves in the foot than last night's IPCC goons.
Another good downloadable watch is "The End Of Suburbia" which presents an unarguable and very compelling case for the 'Peak Oil' situation. The world's limited oil reserves are going to very soon reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions far faster than Kyoto, carbon credits, or any other BS climate tax measures. And yes it also explains the case against the lunacy that is bio-fuels which is just another big business feel-good campaign much like carbon footprint propaganda!
If CO2 is such a threat why have the global warming gestapo not got on the case of brewers of wine and beer who produce sizeable quantities of CO2 in the brewing process, and then squirt the gas around with gay abandon purging vessels and carbonating beer/wine.
And lets not forget the thousands of tonnes of urea fertilizer our pastural farmers have grown so fond of? This stuff is manufactured from hydrocarbons to start with but then when applied to farmland it does a fine job of stimulating soil bacterial activity to consume soil organic matter which in essence 'burns off/oxidizes' the carbon content of soil thus producing CO2 and reducing topsoil depth. And that is the ammonium nitrate that isn't initially flashed off as ammonia to the atmosphere. A few belching sheep and cows are a minor concern compared to this process!
Humans are changing the Earth's climate to any degree of concern? Get real, we may be the dominant species but we are fooling ourselves if we think we really matter in the scheme of things.
On page 39 of the Synthesis report (not the full report) I have found the table of radiative forcing that is included in your jpg image, but not the graph. This table gives a single value for each of the gasses, rather than the formulae from whch the forcings are calculated. However, at the levels for 2005, I have no issue with the values presented, and as far as I know, I have never disputed that radiative forcing takes place.
That still doesn't answer what I asked though. Where is the evidence that man is causing climate change, and where is the evidence that climate change is forcing people to relocate?
Time to ride
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks