Recent Global Cooling Controversy

by metatron 236 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  besty

  mP

  I would like to remind you that in the 1970s scientists also told us we were entering a time of global cooling.

  and then the Wikipedia link you use to support your statement makes exactly the opposite point:

  This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community , but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature,

  Sorry mate - I'm starting to believe you really are slightly retarded.
• 

  Jeffro

  mP:

  I prefer text because its easy to read and quote, videos are a bit harder and not quite as easy to quote.

  Surely a wizard like yourself can type a paragraph. I wnt you to type the text here, so i can reply here in writing.

  Who cares what you prefer?! You can barely go a sentence without showing yourself to be an insulting arrogant fool.
• 

  besty

  @mP

  The graph just a few responses above quite clearly shows it was hotter 10k -3k years ago and then another rise about 1000 years ago. Dont tell me about grreenhouses gases address this.

  It's important to know there are a number of different forces acting on the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. It's worth remembering that without some greenhouse gas the Earth would be a ball of ice.

  These forces are called "forcings" because they force changes in the global average temperature.

  Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to such forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out past temperature changes, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Looking at many different periods and timescales including many thousands of years ago we've learned that when the Earth gains heat, glaciers and sea ice melt resulting in a positive feedbacks that amplify the warming. There are other positive feedbacks as well and this is why the planet has experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past.

  In summary the past reveals our climate is highly sensitive to small changes in heat.

  What does that mean for today? Over the past 150 years greenhouse gas levels have increased 40 percent mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This additional "forcing" is warming the planet more than it has in thousands of years. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify this additional warming.

  The Earth's climate has changed in the past and ice cores and other measures tell us why. Based on this knowledge, and other types of evidence we know the human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate.

  http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

  Look at the last 10000 years. There are plenty of temps above and below today. These changes happened without factories and cars. Please tell me whats the difference between them and today

  Does the above information answer your question?
• 

  mP

  Jeffro:

  Who cares what you prefer?! You can barely go a sentence without showing yourself to be an insulting arrogant fool.

  mP:

  here we go again, with a reply completely filled with hatred and insults and nothing worthwhile.
• 

  mP

  besty:

  Yes there are many factors, im glad you agree. You didnt explain or prove that this time is different, but only filled your reply with basic stuff everybody knows. Just telling me about volcanos doesnt really add weight to your argument. There were volcanos 5000 years ago just like now.
• 

  besty

  @mP

  You didnt explain or prove that this time is different, but only filled your reply with basic stuff everybody knows.

  You can do more advanced research here http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

  Meantime, you have the burden of proof - by accepting a 3% minority position you should explain to JWD why you are better qualified than 97% of climate scientists to hold your minority position.

  Go ahead please.
• 

  mP

  Besty;

  What has JWD got to do with GW ?
• 

  mP

  Besty:

  You can do more advanced research here http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

  mP:

  In other words your bland text about volcanos is nonsense, and yet its so clear for you. The best you can do is claim to authority.

  First of all none of us know who climatesight is. That article is barely above high school level. it doesnt discuss the very question you attemptd to answer about the higher temps 10000-5000 years ago.

  Come one do better. The 97% img has no citation. Couldnt you pick something a little more reputable. Its mostly filled with assumptions and theres no a single quote to anything.
• 

  besty

  @mP

  In other words your bland text about volcanos is nonsense, and yet its so clear for you. The best you can do is claim to authority.

  The text was not specifically about volcanoes, it was about the various forces that affect climate, of which volcanoes are one. If you are saying you read that article and concluded it was about volcanoes then I think we are done here.

  First of all you claimed it was "basic stuff everybody knows" and now you claim it is "nonsense" - which is it? Neither, it's actually "barely above high school level"

  it doesnt discuss the very question you attemptd to answer about the higher temps 10000-5000 years ago.

  It actually does if you are able to read it with comprehension. In summary climate responds to the dominant forcing at that time - could be solar, could be volcanoes, could be Milankovitch cycles - the point is that nothing explains current warming other than human activity.

  The best you can do is claim to authority.

  There is nothing wrong with legitimate authority where consensus exists. How would you chose a heart surgeon if you need a triple bypass? Would you find one of the 3% of heart surgeons that don't take a mainstream approach to surgery? Authority is the only rational approach for non-experts like me.

  Please explain to me why you are better qualified than the 97% of climate scientists that accept human activity is the cause of climate change.
• 

  besty

  97% is the number of climate scientists that accept the consensus opinion that human activity causes climate change and global warming.

  http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm