Has climate change slowed down?

[rtxoff]

Claims that global warming isn't happening, isn't caused by humans or isn't significant are just insane. I can't take anyone serious claiming anything of that.

Also i can understand the bad feelings here towards the deniers, such people are putting the stones onto the road into a better future. How could anyone like them?

[CaptainKipard]

Here is a video of an obtuse politician being schooled by a polite scientist answering many of the issues that deniers usually raise. I found it difficult to watch.

Global warming doesn't exists...

Doesn't exist and it is not caused by human activity are two different things.

I think I found the problem. It's not just that you're talking nonsense. You have the amazing ability to back-pedal and hold contradictory ideas in your head, again demonstrating your confirmation bias. You're not moving forward from data. You're slowly retreating from a presupposition. Why not just make a fresh start?

Edited October 7, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Dodgey]

Darnok show your evidence that modern day climate change is not caused by humans or stop arguing. The video posted by Albert VDS debunks all of your claims that I can see. Provide some sources or evidence or stop making baseless claims.

[magnemoe]

Every reputable prediction I seen excludes probability of cooling in a long-term perspective.

Obviously an cooling in the 2040-2050 period over 1960-2000 would pretty much disprove global warming no climate scientists would want that

I also see is as unlikely.

I however was a bit unclear, the spread in predictions is to large to show much consensus, decent chance an cooling would fit inside the error margins if you look at them statistically.

Edited October 7, 2014 by magnemoe

[magnemoe]

Why look at 2050 and wait? We can just raise the documents from 1990s and check their predictions for today.

You have any links? it could be entertaining.

[Kulebron]

No, I'd love to see them myself.

such people are putting the stones onto the road into a better future

...of co2 permissions futures traders at stock market.

[Kulebron]

Darnok show your evidence that modern day climate change is not caused by humans or stop arguing. The video posted by Albert VDS debunks all of your claims that I can see. Provide some sources or evidence or stop making baseless claims.

It's the one who insists on some measures who must prove his claims of causation.

Again, I don't get it: why polluted ocean with tons of platstic is not a problem, and CO2 is? How come AGW fanatics are not ok with planes and want you to save bears, but are ok at buying stuff like plastic bottles?

Some guys decide they want to bike rather than take a bus, and they buy a plastic bottle of water. What's more damaging? A bus emitting some CO2, or another plastic bottle that will be shipped to East Asia in a container and dumped into the Pacific?

Edited October 7, 2014 by Kulebron

[CaptainKipard]

Obviously an cooling in the 2040-2050 period over 1960-2000 would pretty much disprove global warming no climate scientists would want that

I'm no entirely sure what you're trying to say there. Are you implying that scientists in particular have a vested interest in convincing everyone for personal reasons? Did you even read this whole thread?

It's the one who insists on some measures who must prove his claims of causation.

Again, I don't get it: why polluted ocean with tons of platstic is not a problem, and CO2 is? How come AGW fanatics are not ok with planes and want you to save bears, but are ok at buying stuff like plastic bottles?

Some guys decide they want to bike rather than take a bus, and they buy a plastic bottle of water. What's more damaging? A bus emitting some CO2, or another plastic bottle that will be shipped to East Asia in a container and dumped into the Pacific?

There's no coherent point in this post. Can you gather your thoughts and make one?

[Kulebron]

Are you implying that scientists in particular have a vested interest in convincing everyone for personal reasons?

Sure they do. Some of these researches were financed by UN IPCC.

[Kulebron]

There's no coherent point in this post. Can you gather your thoughts and make one?

Point 1: causation is still to be proved. If there is, please, send me a link to materials that prove the causation, not discuss the issues around this.

Point 2: the top priority in ecological problems is wastes, not AGW.

[Fingal]

why polluted ocean with tons of platstic is not a problem, and CO2 is? How come AGW fanatics are not ok with planes and want you to save bears, but are ok at buying stuff like plastic bottles?

Some guys decide they want to bike rather than take a bus, and they buy a plastic bottle of water. What's more damaging? A bus emitting some CO2, or another plastic bottle that will be shipped to East Asia in a container and dumped into the Pacific?

Please provide evidence that "AGW fanatics" have no problem with excess consumer consumption. Please also state how their attitude affects the science surrounding AGW.

[AngelLestat]

To Darnok, magnemoe, kulebron and all other clueless people on this topic.

The debate about global warming is over. Now the only debate is about if it would rise 3 or 7 degress to the end of century.

Of course when I talk of debate, I mean between the scientific community. Not between paid politicians and the shoemaker from the corner.

Why this is more important than other ecologic problems? Because it would extinguish many species, kill a lot of people, change a lot of ecosystems and would cost a huge amount of money (which the world does not have) just to deal with the consequences.

Now.. stop ignoring all the evidence presented because if you kept this idea and you are wrong, it means that you will spread the ignorance to other people who doesn´t know much.

And one way to stop this fast, is with conscientization.

[CaptainKipard]

Sure they do. Some of these researches were financed by UN IPCC.

Dear god.... what is the logical connection?!

Point 1: causation is still to be proved. If there is, please, send me a link to materials that prove the causation, not discuss the issues around this.

You want a link to "materials" covering the entirety of cross-discipline knowledge gathered on the subject? I don't believe you are serious. This isn't about information. This is a trust issue for you. You don't trust scientists for some reason. If you really want the "materials" then why are you waiting for someone to spoon-feed you easy-to-digest soundbites? Why aren't you more curious?

Point 2: the top priority in ecological problems is wastes, not AGW.

omg...What is your point?

Do you not understand how logic and reason works?

You start with an observation.

You find a correlation or causation

You draw conclusions

What facts do have? What conclusions are you drawing? That's another way of asking "what's your point?". You're not going to get anywhere if you keep expressing incoherent thoughts.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Darnok]

I think I found the problem. It's not just that you're talking nonsense. You have the amazing ability to back-pedal and hold contradictory ideas in your head, again demonstrating your confirmation bias. You're not moving forward from data. You're slowly retreating from a presupposition. Why not just make a fresh start?

What? Global warming caused by human activity doesn't exists... in first post I was bit busy and ate half of my statement

[KerikBalm]

I think this pretty much sums up the denialist arguments

[SargeRho]

What? Global warming caused by human activity doesn't exists... in first post I was bit busy and ate half of my statement

Of course it exists. Unless you are going to disagree with 97% of climate scientists?

[lajoswinkler]

When you're applying emotions to a rational question, it's harmful. This leads you to oversimplifying the questions and counterarguments. Nobody argues that climate got warmer over last 300 years. Nobody argues that burning fossil fuels is a temporary solution and non-renewable.

Actually, yes, people do argue about that. Some of them used to say that 20 years ago, but now say the civilization is not to blaim. They've changed their opinions and they will to it once more. It's inevitable.

Questions that sceptics make are too subtle and scientific for wide public to even understand.

Question 1: can climatologist predict anything so that their knowledge and theories be scientific? Any proof? What are climatologists' proven measurable forecasts?

Question 2: proof of correlation and causation of warming in any model tests? We do see the warming, which coincides with human industrial age. But what was Middle age warm period caused by then?

Let's leave apart the whole question of research and review methodology and paid research.

Instead of answers, I see attempts to oversimplify things like yours, or "do you want Amsterdam to submerge?!" and narrowing the field: "look it's warming last 200 years!" "don't you acknowledge our hockey stick?" while the true questions are hidden, like why medieval climate was so warm.

First of all, those are not skeptics. Skeptics are open to ideas and use scientific method to find the best answer. A skeptic is not a kind of solipsist. He does not say "I can't know" or "it's impossible to know" and certainly not "I don't know, therefore X", where X is someone's opinion based on feelings.

Your first question is mute because you obviously don't understand the difference between weather and climate. Learn that, first.

2nd question - the correlation is very strong and the observed increase in average global temperature is unprecedented in the geological history. Never did Earth experience such insanely fast speed of warming up. Not in earlier eras and epochs and certainly not in the medieval ages.

I have absolutely no idea if this can be stopped, but I don't see the harm of trying. USA, Russia and China are releasing enormous quantities of CO2 and CH4. There's no need for that.

That's a very much fault of the events in US where what should be scientific debate became nearly purely political debate and a matter of "faith" - discussed in terms of "I believe" or "I don't believe".

Consequences of the events there are now putting stress not only on global awareness of the environment, but also on popular trust to the scientists or heck: even value people put in logic and reason as plenty of the misinformation from the US climate change argument radiates to other disciplines all across the globe (sad disadvantage of globalization)

My advice to the US education system is to stop with "debate clubs". Raising young people in the environment where form is glorified over essence is wrong and contributes to what you're saying.

The society as a whole thinks everything is debatable, which is a direct path to destruction.

[m4v]

An its no consensus, if you look at various predictions for 2050 the span is so large that we could just as well get cooling

Cooling... okay but with what confidence? science can't tell the absolute truth, what it does is tell "there's a 95% probability that this is true", if you don't bother to check for the statistical confidence values then what the model says is meaningless.

Still, scientists might not know exactly where the climate is going, but they are confident that it will go to a world of hurt, and once there you can't return.

Edited October 7, 2014 by m4v

[Kulebron]

Your first question is mute because you obviously don't understand the difference between weather and climate. Learn that, first.

Naming me a fool is a bad argument. If you make statements like this, you do not or pretend to not understand what science is. Every scientific theory must give a verifiable and falsifiable prediction, which must be confirmed by further observations. If they have data, they should predict an average temperature (either as scalar or as a function) for 5-10 years period some years ahead.

I'll appreciate if you post such predictions from like year 2000 when there was already abundance of CPUs and internet everywhere.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

To Darnok, magnemoe, kulebron and all other clueless people on this topic.

The debate about global warming is over. Now the only debate is about if it would rise 3 or 7 degress to the end of century.

Of course when I talk of debate, I mean between the scientific community. Not between paid politicians and the shoemaker from the corner.

Why this is more important than other ecologic problems? Because it would extinguish many species, kill a lot of people, change a lot of ecosystems and would cost a huge amount of money (which the world does not have) just to deal with the consequences.

Now.. stop ignoring all the evidence presented because if you kept this idea and you are wrong, it means that you will spread the ignorance to other people who doesn´t know much.

And one way to stop this fast, is with conscientization.

Here's how I see it. We only have actual climate data from a miniscule time frame of just over a few hundred years. We then use ice cores and layers of rock that we can date to extrapolate how eons past MIGHT have been climatalogically. Ice cores and rock are great and all, but atmospheric data from the lowest few meters(aka ground/sea level) is a very small section of the gradient of the atmosphere. I'm not convinced that using these as fundamental data which we use to draw conclusions from eons past is reliable enough to come to a conclusion such as "The debate about global warming is over." Also note, I'm not a scientist so this is purely opinion.

[Kulebron]

Dear god.... what is the logical connection?!

Please, have some rest if you have troubles connecting 2 sentences. I'm not going to chew things for you.

[Darnok]

Darnok show your evidence that modern day climate change is not caused by humans or stop arguing. The video posted by Albert VDS debunks all of your claims that I can see. Provide some sources or evidence or stop making baseless claims.

Sir you didn't saw that video or didn't read my posts, because that video didn't answer or debunked any of my claims.

Ice on poles are anomaly in Earth's history!

60 milions years ago there was no ice on poles, oceans level were much higher, temperature was higher than today... that is why huge reptiles were walking on Earth... and now all climate changes are going to same state and small funny creatures are in panic

http://thracianexodus.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/calvin-and-hobbes-on-postmodernism.jpg

I think this pretty much sums up the denialist arguments

That is only your opinion, most people doesn't understand facts and most people that believe in global warming caused by humans deny Earth's history or think only about last 100-200 years, so there is no way to talk about this topic in their very limited scope.

Of course it exists. Unless you are going to disagree with 97% of climate scientists?

500 years ago only about 3% people were aware that Earth is not flat, so yea I am going to disagree with them

[magnemoe]

I'm no entirely sure what you're trying to say there. Are you implying that scientists in particular have a vested interest in convincing everyone for personal reasons? Did you even read this whole thread?

Not personal its their job, same as an car salesman want to sell you an car. Not doing so is failing to do their job.

It should not be shocking that any organization working for an cause will try to increase their importance by boosting the cause, coming up with reports who undermine this is very unpopular internally, this is true everywhere.

Overestimating Soviet capabilities during the cold war is probably the worst example, all of the intelligence or military organizations overestimated Soviet, not doing so would result in cutbacks, this went on for 45 years, no conspiracy just how organisations work.

And no the cooling thing was mostly an joke, however lots of the answers to the lack of heating the last 14 years sounds very defensive like someone having to explain why they are behind target. Not like someone trying to solve an scientist problem.

[ZedNova]

500 years ago only about 3% people were aware that Earth is not flat, so yea I am going to disagree with them

I'm not sure how this justifies arguing against the mounds of evidence climatologists have to support Global Warming. Especially since you're incorrect about that 3%. Almost every educated person 500 years ago knew the earth was round.

[m4v]

Please, have some rest if you have troubles connecting 2 sentences. I'm not going to chew things for you.

I believe he was perfectly capable of reading and understanding your sentence, but your implying that the IPCC is paying scientist to lie or push forward an agenda is retarded, since the IPCC doesn't finance anyone, its function is to publish reports and scientists participate voluntary. Hence the "there's no logic".

Edited October 7, 2014 by m4v