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

Am I really the first to say.. wrote:

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.

-30. Can't even come up with a myth.

I am not looking to start an argument about global warming. I am proving a point. Climate change deniers are long on talk and short on science.

As for my evidence, I again cite to the IPCC 2007 report and subsequent work for the 2009 conference. I have also provided numerous links to a very good informational piece from the New Scientist. A far cry from getting my rocks off without backing it up. You really should feel sorry for the ignorance behind the posts that deny climate change based on current local weather conditions.

Bring it, oil boys wrote:

[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.

No dude. I'm just too lazy to argue with you over something where science can prove either side. It's like arguing over if there is a God or not. Do your own damn research if it means so much to you. I've got better things to do than to try and show resistant tree huggers how they are not 100% correct.

You dumb bastards, there is no global warming. There's global climate destabilization. That results from a general warming pattern, but it's the disruption, not the temperature, that's so bad. The jet stream has shifted from straight across the US to slightly sinoidal, and it's only going to increase its oscillation. That means both HOTTER days when it's hot and COLDER days when it's cold, as well as hot days when it should be cold and cold days too early in the year when it should still be hot.

Bring it, oil boys wrote:

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

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm

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.

IPCC report is a complete fraud, as are any scientists supporting Global Warming. It has been debunked already by their own emails. Thank you Russian hackers, you are true global citizens.

I give props to the guy who's trying to define what global warming actually is. To all the idiots who think the global warming is a literal term for the temperature of the globe rising, please look up a definition or something, it's embarrassing. News stations caught on to the phrase without reading what it actually meant and so you get the general population of Fox News watchers

i think there are prolly maybe 500 of us who thot this same thing. we just don't really have the care to type it up...

lazy.....yawn.....let's see what other threads are out there....hhhummm...

truth seems lost. follow the $

The globe has been warming since the early 1800's. It spent the previous 500 years cooling, but before that it had spent the previous 700-800 years warming. The planet was as warm or warmer than it is now 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, and 3000 to 8000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

CO2 follows temperature change, not the reverse. When temperature rises, CO2 rises. But when temperature falls, CO2 can continue to rise, stay at a high level, or fall slowly. Elevated CO2 levels don't cause temperature to rise endlessly.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years

CO2 levels have continued to rise over the last decade, but temperatures have not.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Nov_09.jpg

The climate changes. People don't cause it.

1. Winter Storm Warning in my area starting tomorrow afternoon.

2. High of 4F on Sunday.

Global warming, sure (rolls eyes).

You are a moron, it's hard to see how you function during the day. Your basic science is offensive to anyone who has ever learned anything about science. Starting off what the hell is a bi-product? Bi means two, perhaps what you were searching for is by-? Then the thing that just makes me want to find out where you are and punch you in the face is that CO2 is what plants absorb along with water sunlight and nutrients to produce food, and release oxygen as one of the BY-products. The break down of organic matter releases methane when paced in a low oxygen environment, while carbon is sequestered when the organic matter naturally breaks down. Methane is a concern because it is much better heat trapping gas, but less so than CO2 because it breaks down much faster, and there is a lot less in the atmosphere than the amount of CO2.

I could go on, but i feel my point is proven that for you to ever share your opinion about anything remotely scientific is actually a crime against humanity. To sum up my thoughts I will use a quote from Billy Madison "Everyone in This Room Is Now Dumber For Having Listened to It." It, in this case,is referring to your "scientific" opinion.

You forgot a bunch of commas. It's very hard to take someone like you seriously.

ya even if he was hostile it's a pretty strong arguement

Ha. Okay, you're right. We're all gonna die, and I don't care. Let me know when enough people care about your stupid theory to actually do anything. The thing is, I'm done proving to you idiots about climate change. All I have to do is let you spout off and live my life, and guess what? Nothing will happen. In another 30-40 years, this theory will blow over, and you will be laughed at. So for now, I'm gonna let you be right and wait for the end of the world. Chances are, things will get hyped as the beginning of the end, but the end will never actually come. I've lost nothing while you've frustrated yourself to no end to convert people. Do you get what I'm saying? Don't you want this juicy piece of belief in your theory? Well, try harder.

ITS GLOBAL WARMING not climate change you slithery little liberal insect.

Wind chills in the -20F range later this week in my neck of the woods. Global warming? Uh, no. Please try again.

The Max Planck Institute in Germany has been studying solar irradiance in its many forms (including magnetic, etc.). Here's a sample graph showing solar irradiance since about 1850 (notice the steep decline around 2000):

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

Now, about my earlier Mars comment. The articles you mention as a "refutation" have a very high degree of uncertainty and guesswork in them. For example, there is no mention of any data actually measuring the temperature of the surface of Mars, just a guess of what "might" be happening.

Consider this: The Mars atmosphere is quite thin so, although there is quite a bit of dust (when is there ever NOT quite a bit of dust on Mars?), as a planet it is more likely to mirror the effects of solar strength simply because its atmosphere won't trap solar heat for very long.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

The globe has been warming since the early 1800's. It spent the previous 500 years cooling, but before that it had spent the previous 700-800 years warming. The planet was as warm or warmer than it is now 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, and 3000 to 8000 years ago.

CO2 follows temperature change, not the reverse. When temperature rises, CO2 rises. But when temperature falls, CO2 can continue to rise, stay at a high level, or fall slowly. Elevated CO2 levels don't cause temperature to rise endlessly.

CO2 levels have continued to rise over the last decade, but temperatures have not.

The climate changes. People don't cause it.

+15 for trying to cite to science as evidence to support your refutation. (I had to take out your links to clear the spam detection)

First, the legitimate issue raised is the normative climate argument: who is to say what the climate should be? The problem with this argument is that it assumes that humans will be able to adapt to a radical change in climate. There is no evidence that 6.6 billion people on this planet could withstand the loss of fresh water from glaciers, the loss of fisheries due to flooded estuaries, killing the organisms that need brackish water to survive, the relocation of hundreds of millions due to sea level rise (100+ million in Bangladesh alone), the loss of agricultrual output due to radical climate variations and so on. Just look at how ineptly the world handled famines in Somalia, Ethiopia and the Sudan. Thus, it is legitimate to say that our current climate is ideal and a radically altered climate should be avoided, even at great expense.

-5 for repeating the climate myth that because warming has preceded CO2 increase in the past, increases in CO2 does not drive warming. While it is true that CO2 increases lagged behind warming trends after the last ice age, it is also true that CO2 drove warming during the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum. The basic physics behind CO2 as a green house gas is undisuptable.

-5 for citing a study that actually refutes your contention. The conclusion of the Vostok ice core study was that the current accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented.

The lag in CO2 increases at the end of the last ice age occurred over hundreds of years. The current accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature rise associated with it have occurred in a fraction of the time span. Hardly a valid comparator to enable anyone to refute CO2 as driving warming.

-5 for linking to a web page that refutes your position. The well accepted conclusion of the ice core studies is that climate has historically been very unstable. The past 10,000 years have been relatively stable. Green house gases may bring the climate back to a period of instability, not just a linear warming trend. This is actually worse because it will be much more difficult to adapt to a radically changing environment, especially when we are heavily dependent on monoculture that is not capable of adapting to different climatic conditions.

-5 for believing that warming will be linear and not taking into account the effects of la nina ocean current patterns. That is why it is called climate change instead of global warming. We will not see a linear, year to year, steady increase in temperature. Over the long run, we have seen a significant rise in temperatures, but no one ever claimed a clear linear rise. Finally, even your own chart shows this decade to have been very warm. Indications are that this past decade has been the warmest on record:

Sarah Palin says global warming is bogus, so that's good enough for me!

http://www.freep.com/article/20091208/BLOG36/91208015/1039/ENT04/Palin-calls-global-warming-bogus

So you don't want Al Gore brought up because of possible attacks about his (and other scientists) financial motivation that could weaken your position yet you are apparently totally throwing out the opinions because you feel they are "industry friendly deniers".

Both sides are just trying to make a buck through hedge funds, scientific grants, or oil profits.

+500 points for me, I win your little game.

IllinoisMaster wrote:

The Max Planck Institute in Germany has been studying solar irradiance in its many forms (including magnetic, etc.). Here's a sample graph showing solar irradiance since about 1850 (notice the steep decline around 2000):

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

Now, about my earlier Mars comment. The articles you mention as a "refutation" have a very high degree of uncertainty and guesswork in them. For example, there is no mention of any data actually measuring the temperature of the surface of Mars, just a guess of what "might" be happening.

Consider this: The Mars atmosphere is quite thin so, although there is quite a bit of dust (when is there ever NOT quite a bit of dust on Mars?), as a planet it is more likely to mirror the effects of solar strength simply because its atmosphere won't trap solar heat for very long.

Are you sure you want to link to that graph of solar irradiance? The problem with the theory that the sun has driven temperatures and CO2 has not is that the data on the sun does not line up in any way with the data on temps. Your graph demonstrates that very clearly as the temp graph takes off at a 45 degree angle from the solar irradiance graph.

As for planetary warming on mars, pluto and other moons, there are a number of theories, but no one has been able to conclude that solar output is the cause. Here is a better article on the issue:

The solar output argument is really the best argument for CO2 as the cause of warming. If you look at the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and compare it with temperature trends, the two move in the same direction. If you look at other factors, like solar irradiance, etc., there is no correlation. And that is the challenge that global warming deniers cannot overcome. There is no other natural process that shows the same correlation with temperature trends that CO2 accumulation does.