Is The Sun Causing The Current Climate Change?

[Tim Smith]

And Mitch, more about your Mr. Watts and the way temperature data is handled.

These are the adjusted and unadjusted temperature numbers assembled by NOAA for average temperatures in the USA (where temperature increases have been modest compared to the rest of the world).

I find it pretty ironic that Watts is complaining about temperatures being adjusted when he's the one who has agitated more than anyone else that those data need to be revised.

NOAA doesn't report raw temperature numbers. In fact almost all the raw numbers they collect are revised DOWNWARD to account for local heat island effects and differences in collection sites. If NOAA did report raw numbers, and if those were valid, the debate about rising temperatures would be over before it began. But NOAA isn't interested in winning a debate. They're trying to collect accurate data that reflects the actual trends on the ground.

Seriously, get off websites spewing goofball conspiracy theories and do some inquiry of your own.

[fishinwrench]

The whole issue is never gonna go anywhere, it is going to go down in the record books as the definition of a "circle jerk".

Scientists themselves can't agree on anything.

Economists themselves can't agree on anything.

So the odds that scientists AND economists together will EVER agree on anything is not even a possibility worth hoping for.

So this is nothing more than Debating practice. The ones actively involved in this discussion will be better armed to debate things later on that actually can change minds.

[Mitch f]

Not trying to be sarcastic here but there is an article on the internet that says NOAA scientists knowingly falsified temperature readings, have you heard this? And is this true?

And Mitch, more about your Mr. Watts and the way temperature data is handled.

Seriously, get off websites spewing goofball conspiracy theories and do some inquiry of your own.

My Mr. Watts?? as you can see from my first quote I was simply asking you a question, no alternative motive.

To your second response....I WAS doing my own inquiry on the subject and this came up.....Over the top defensive response Tim.

[Quillback]

Interesting that the Antarctic ice cap is growing, and it's 4 times larger than the Arctic ice cap.

"Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice is poised to set a record maximum this year, now at 19.7 million square kilometers (7.6 million square miles) and continuing to increase."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[Justin Spencer]

I know everyone on this forum is smart enough to realize that humans play a role in climate change (to what level can be debated), but for some reason you don't want to admit it. If in fact you aren't smart enough to realize it I apologize if I offended you.

[jeb]

But the bias argument isn't valid. The same number of scientists will be standing there getting the same amount of money to study other topics if that were what was needed. Biologists have plenty to do. Engineers have plenty to do. The fact is those communities have chosen to work on climate change because climate change is an important problem.

Sure, some of them are. But many are chasing a paycheck. I've read countless stories of folks chasing grant money running into this. For example, someone might want to study black squirrels in MN's hardwood forests. Gets denied. Changes the study to "climate changes impacts on black squirrels in MN" and presto, grant money arrives.

And that has an impact over time. I sincerly hope that most of the folks making hay off this issue actually believe in what they're doing, albiet mis-guided, IMO. But when all the flat earthers are getting money for being on the "right" side of the issue, it sways their peers.

Let's also point out that by your logic, Jeb, that most of the murder convictions in the US would be immediately overturned. You're demanding two different levels of evidence for 2 very important questions.

Not at all. One has real evidence, the other does not. He has a hole in his head or he doesn't. The AGW community wants me to believe there is a hole in his head when there really is none. And they can't prove it one way or the other because his head is 100 years in the future.

And again, the concerns about climate change are specifically about their long term effects on the economy. Everyone agrees the economy needs to be protected while dealing with climate change. That's why companies based on the profit motive are investing money to prepare for this.

Yep, many of them are moving their jobs overseas.

Unless there is a runaway scenario (which seems unlikely to be but could happen), we'll be able to hunker down and muddle through. The problem is the misery that will be associated with that. If current projections are correct, HALF of the GDP of Caribbean nations will be devoted to protecting and recovering from effects of climate change. What a miserable life that would be spending all your time rebuilding from the last storm and trying to avoid getting chewed up in the next one. That's not the future I want to give to my kids.

The fly in the ointment though, is it likely would have been that way anyway. Glaciers come, glaciers go away, it's warmer between those cycles. How warm or how quickly is simply a guessing game. And so far, the "consensus" guessing has been demostrably and overwhelmeingly incorrect.

[Haris122]

Interesting that the Antarctic ice cap is growing, and it's 4 times larger than the Arctic ice cap.

"Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice is poised to set a record maximum this year, now at 19.7 million square kilometers (7.6 million square miles) and continuing to increase."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

It may be growing (though from what I see the actual sea ice (not the landmass of the arctic or antarctic included is smaller than the arctic) but take a look at the table at the bottom of this link

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

While the antarctic ice sheet has been increasing less than a percent per decade, the arctic ice sheet (which also happens to be twice as thick), has been decreasing by 4% every decade. But let me guess, we'll just throw that out for the sake of convenience yet again, as most of those who want to believe nothing is going on, will continue to do. I didn't check, but it seems to make sense to me that ice in the hemishpere where the most human activity is pumping out greenhouse gases, would be the one doing worse, as it is. Seriously, at some point just continuously finding the exception to the rule, to confirm the view your comfortable with, will bite us in the rear bad. But let's go on and keep doing it.

[Tim Smith]

My Mr. Watts?? as you can see from my first quote I was simply asking you a question, no alternative motive.

To your second response....I WAS doing my own inquiry on the subject and this came up.....Over the top defensive response Tim.

My Mr. Watts?? as you can see from my first quote I was simply asking you a question, no alternative motive.

To your second response....I WAS doing my own inquiry on the subject and this came up.....Over the top defensive response Tim.

Hardly over the top. You brought up this guy's work and asked me what I thought about him. I think he's probably a complete charlatan and the web page where that information came from was loaded with similarly ridiculous stories. A web source telling you that you're being poisoned by contrails is not credible. There's not a nice way to say that.

[Tim Smith]

Not at all. One has real evidence, the other does not. He has a hole in his head or he doesn't. The AGW community wants me to believe there is a hole in his head when there really is none. And they can't prove it one way or the other because his head is 100 years in the future.

The evidence for global warming is monumental. Most glaciers are retreating, the ice caps are retreating, the lakes are icing out sooner, most the cold adapted plants animals are moving north and further up the mountains and warm adapted species are moving in behind them, and yes...the temperatures are increasing. Global averages are hotter now than they have been since we started taking records. These things are all recorded and are all within a few mouse clicks of your computer.

Yep, many of them are moving their jobs overseas.

And many of them are looking for extra capacity to deal with reduced snow melt and stream flows, less water, higher temps, more intense storms and all the things that are already starting to happen.

The fly in the ointment though, is it likely would have been that way anyway. Glaciers come, glaciers go away, it's warmer between those cycles. How warm or how quickly is simply a guessing game. And so far, the "consensus" guessing has been demostrably and overwhelmeingly incorrect.

Those cycles don't come from thin air. Nature works on cause and effect. Greenhouse gases are one cause among many, and in the short term, they seem to be the ones moving the needle the most. You can say the scientists are just "guessing" but I have articles from 1991 that predict the very things that have come to pass in the last 23 years since that article was written. The predictions for the Midwest where you live are spot on. But if you're willing to say there's no current warming then you're not going to listen to that either.

[Jerry Rapp]

Tim, you do live in Colorado?