Please post in this thread a better refutation of climate change than "it is really cold today"

Cool! As long as we're playing this game, somebody explain to me why abortion is wrong without claiming that "life begins at conception".

I thought you meant give different phrases with the same meaning for "It is really cold today"

mine was going to be, "it's chilly outside."

Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

As one of the biggest proponents of global warming, how can Al Gore not be brought up in the discussion? It's like saying talk about the War in Iraq, but you're not allowed to bring up George Walker Bush.

Second, why don't you give me some reasons FOR global warming other than it got hot in the summer?

30 or 40 years ago, scientists said we were going into an ice age

There are better and more recent articles, but this one is free to everyone.

http://aos.princeton.edu/WWWPUBLIC/gkv/history/Budyko69.pdf

By the way, you are feeding the beast--the real debate is not climate change, but energy conservation. Al Gore tried to take a note from the Republicans by making the debate emotional and moral (see abortion, gay marriage,...) while the solution is purely political and economical. As a result there is a needless debate about climate change (like this) and little debate about producing manufacturing jobs in new, more energy efficient technologies.

Where I am it's cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey! Now do you believe that global warming is a hoax?

I thought this lecture was pretty interesting:

http://web.mit.edu/esi/symposia/symposium-2009/wunsch.html

Gucci wrote:

As one of the biggest proponents of global warming, how can Al Gore not be brought up in the discussion? It's like saying talk about the War in Iraq, but you're not allowed to bring up George Walker Bush.

Second, why don't you give me some reasons FOR global warming other than it got hot in the summer?

The reasons for global warming are in the IPCC report. The 2007 report is exhaustive:

This thread is for the deniers.

Al Gore is off limits because it is always an ad hominem attack. The point is to talk about science, not the easy political cheap shots. Every point on Al Gore could be turned around on guys like Inhoffe, Lindzen, etc.

In fact -- and this is the clincher for me -- where I am it's colder than a polar bear's toenails! Global warming, global schmorming.

Increases in temperature precede increases in CO2.

This is pretty basic science here. CO2 is the bi-product of many biological processes such as photosynthesis or the break-down of organic matter, and these processes happen faster and produce more CO2 at higher temps. Anyone who's ever brewed beer knows that you'll carb faster at a higher temperature (or the bottles will shatter first). Given that much of the planet is covered in plants, which ultimately control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (not humans), it makes perfect sense that CO2 concentrations will be higher following years with higher temperatures. Put the temp and CO2 data together, and you'll see that temperature increases precede increases in CO2, not the other way around. To roughly quote Ian Clarke (a well respected scientist), CO2 has never driven climate in the past, and it certainly isn't now.

with a PhD comes great respons wrote:

There are better and more recent articles, but this one is free to everyone.

http://aos.princeton.edu/WWWPUBLIC/gkv/history/Budyko69.pdf

By the way, you are feeding the beast--the real debate is not climate change, but energy conservation. Al Gore tried to take a note from the Republicans by making the debate emotional and moral (see abortion, gay marriage,...) while the solution is purely political and economical. As a result there is a needless debate about climate change (like this) and little debate about producing manufacturing jobs in new, more energy efficient technologies.

5 points. A bonus of another 5 points for citing current research that shows a correlation between solar radiation and the warming trend from 1980 to present (article is from 1968).

The real debate is energy conservation if you accept the climate change premise. Most deniers would tell you "drill baby drill" and not be terribly concerned about finite energy resources. And the solution can certainly be emotional and moral. How did the Bald Eagle get off the endangered list? There is no economic justification for the kind of land use and hunting restrictions that were placed on the bird. Same case could be made for fighting global warming for the stress it places on endangered species.

It is really cold cold today. Conclusion? There is no global warming. :-)

I'm not interested in playing your game thus I won't offer you scientific research, but the region where I live is in a 15 year cooling / wet trend (according to average temperatures throughout the year compared to prior decades) and is forecasted to remain so for another 20 years (although forecasts mean nothing).

My personal opinion? Does global warming exist? Sure. So does global cooling. I believe the world goes through cycles. Look at the ice age for example. Did human waste cause clobal warming to bring the World out of the ice age? No. It happened naturally. The Worlds climate is a continually changing environment. Yes human waste can alter/heighten change but change will and has happened for eternity before we even got here.

One thing that does suck is that the glaciers where I live have shrunk compared to photos from the 40's. That said, I still go snowmobiling from November through June every year. So go figure. And the city I live in hasn't hit the 100's during the summer in decades, even though it was common place to be in the 100's during the sumer months (according to historic records) when my grandfather was growing up.

But I'll drink the cool aid and say global warming is happening and is caused by us. We'll all be dead in a decade due to it so you might as well live your life today before we all fry from the heat!!!

On a side note... I'd like global warming to affect where I live about 5 degrees warmer each and every day. The summer months are just so damn short, I only get to go wakeboarding for 3 months each year!!! I'd like a longer season. It was almost a waste buying a boat. Actually, it was worth every penny to have a boat load of hotties in bikini's all sumer long...

try this one wrote:

Increases in temperature precede increases in CO2.

This is pretty basic science here. CO2 is the bi-product of many biological processes such as photosynthesis or the break-down of organic matter, and these processes happen faster and produce more CO2 at higher temps. Anyone who's ever brewed beer knows that you'll carb faster at a higher temperature (or the bottles will shatter first). Given that much of the planet is covered in plants, which ultimately control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (not humans), it makes perfect sense that CO2 concentrations will be higher following years with higher temperatures. Put the temp and CO2 data together, and you'll see that temperature increases precede increases in CO2, not the other way around. To roughly quote Ian Clarke (a well respected scientist), CO2 has never driven climate in the past, and it certainly isn't now.

5 points for a thoughtful post, minus 3 for not refuting New Scientist:

CO2 driving climate is a matter of well settled physics. In the past, CO2 has preceding warming and warming has preceded temperature. Just because warming has preceded CO2 concentrations in the past does not mean that CO2 has no greenhouse affect. So, minus another 2 for the conclusory assertion that CO2 has never driven climate in the past.

[quote]my gf has a whooty! wrote:

I'm not interested in playing your game thus I won't offer you scientific research [quote]

-20. You, and others, are proving my point. It is easy to throw off personal opinions and editorials about climate change, but when taken to task to discuss the science, deniers come up very, very short. "It could be ___, it could be ___, but I don't want to play your science game." Given what is at stake, deniers should be held to a higher standard. But they are not. Proponents must give forth evidence that is as reliable as the boiling point for water at sea level. Deniers get tons of support for providing a contrary view point that carries only a fraction of the science that proponents have amassed.

The Mars Polar Caps lost ice during the past decade, which seems to me to be a nice way of showing the effect of stronger solar output on planetary warming. Gosh, did the IPCC report happen to include a rebuttal to that, too?

Dude, why are you on HERE trying to start an argument about global warming? You blatantly ask for someone to refute it, but do you honestly expect a decent argument? Sure people have opinions and some evidence, but I would guess there are maybe 1, or 2 people on here with substantial knowledge to entertain your question. And none of those people are going to want to type out a 5+ page research/thesis paper on a LR post.

If you truly wanted an educated discussion, you would have gone to a credible scientific research community. Instead, you went to LetsRun to get your rocks off criticizing others while giving no evidence of your own. I feel sorry for your ignorance.

Yawn.

Shut the F&@# up, douche bag.

-------------

Seriously, do you all really think you make a case against climate change by noting that it is really cold where you are? Is that all you have got?

Here is my challenge:

Make your best shot at a well thought out, serious refutation of climate change. Points are given for the following:

-Links to actual science by actual scientists who are not the usual industry friendly deniers (Monkton, Bellamy, Lindzen, et al)

-Discussing the actual scientific significance of climate gate, rather than making conclusory statements about bias and fraud arising from a few emails

-Providing contrary explanation (links to research, articles etc) of climate trends based on actual science, not speculation

-Providing criticisms of temperature observations that are based on actual science

-Providing actual data on how humans could withstand the effects of global warming if it happened as predicted(the "even if true"/"Vikings grew crops in Greenland" argument)

Points are deducted for the following:

-Any refernce to the following climate myths:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

without an explanation as to why New Scientist is wrong

-Any of the following demonstrably lame arguments:

1. Anything about Al Gore

2. The petition project

3. Scientists were wrong about global cooling in the 1970s

4. Liberals just want to control the world (like Exxon Mobil doesn't)

5. It is cold here

This is your chance to shine, climate change critics. Don't disappoint Al Gore. The winner gets a commemorative plate with a picture of Sen. James Inhoffe snearing at Sen. Barbara Boxer.

IllinoisMaster wrote:

The Mars Polar Caps lost ice during the past decade, which seems to me to be a nice way of showing the effect of stronger solar output on planetary warming. Gosh, did the IPCC report happen to include a rebuttal to that, too?

-5.

And minus another 5 points for claiming an increase in solar output without showing any data or correlation beteween increase solar output and recent climate trends.

Again, deniers say it and credibility is virtually assumed because it takes a bit of science to refute.