Pics or it didn't happen.

@BOG ... I said that the Northern Lights would have bery rarely if ever shown themselves below the Arctic Circle. Nowadays, it is fairly common with even the slightest geomagnetic storm, such as the one occurring now, for the lights to dive much further south. It is well documented that pollutants in the atmosphere assist with that.

My point was that you should stop caring about your politics and go see the lights tonight. It is the display of a lifetime when they really shine.

Wow this is a hilarious thread. Very amusing to see such downright denial.

It's more common than it should be.

There's also a meteor shower tonight. I've seen some of the brightest tails I have ever seen tonight and North Chicago isn't exactly a dark sky.

There is no way to prove that you are or are not a bald old guy because it's the interwebs and you can find pics of bald old men easily.

"Maybe I should just start arguing that Army Paris should be in Munich for Germany's benefit by 1901. Seems legit."

A Germany in one of my games actually thought this and invited me into Munich in 1901 as part of some kind of ploy to convince England we weren't working together.

On the other hand, it might actually have worked if Russia hadn't simultaneously decided invading Silesia in 1901 was a good idea. EF happened pretty quickly after that.

Octavious, what do you think of Natgeo's take on the conflicting NASA reports?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151103-antarctic-ice-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20151103news-antarctic&utm_campaign=Content&sf14902654=1

@ BOG: "But somehow, because of man, climate is changing because of man."

You're a gibbering idiot.

I am 100% certain that if climate is changing because of man then that will be because of man.

"Jane, you ignorant slut"

Prove using fact-based evidence that Jane is ignorant and a slut and that this also disproves anthropomorphic climate change.

Proving or disproving anthropomorphic climate change is not at all the same as proving or disproving anthropogenic climate change, mind you.

Dammit TrPrado you blew it for me too early.

I was hoping we'd have a whole thread of people using the term "anthropomorphic climate change" before anyone realised.

I'm such a buzzkill.

Mind you, BOG only reads about 25% of each post, so you never know, it may still work.

''Wow this is a hilarious thread. Very amusing to see such downright denial.''

2) The alarmist movement stubbornly refuses to debate its dogma, calling it “settled science” and viciously attacking its critics. The attacks are not limited to name calling but include prohibiting scientific research that contradicts this dogma. Significant figures within the movement call for criminal persecution of those who publicly disagree with the dogma and, in some cases, for those who do not follow it. Proposed punishments for “heretics” and “infidels” include prison and even death.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/26/the-cult-of-climate-change-nee-global-warming/

And this ''French weatherman fired for promoting book sceptical of climate change''

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/02/french-weatherman-fired-for-promoting-book-sceptical-of-climate-change

Where was point (1)?

Stuck up BOG''s arse

@ fulhamish: "Proposed punishments for “heretics” and “infidels” include prison and even death."

Please provide fact-based evidence of a single reputable scientific institution, or individual climate scientist, proposing that anyone who disagrees with them should be killed.

FWIW Anthony Watts is not as reputable a source as he would like you to believe. He has no scientific qualifications and has a substantial personal financial interest in promoting climate change denial.

postet some of them before, going to post them again. not mine, copied and pasted from somewhere.

. What specific evidence would climate scientists have to produce to convince you that human caused GHGs are a significant contributor to the current global warming?

. Do you believe there is a difference between long-term trend and variability?

. Name the title of one published paper that was corrected or retracted as a result of "climategate"

. Why haven't any scientific papers been challenged for manipulation or fraud by Heartland, Watts, Singer, Inhofe, Curry, Spencer, Bastardi, Morono or any of the other deniers?

. If the climate science data is being faked/altered, then why do anti-science wackos cherry pick the climate science data to try to "prove" there is a global conspiracy?

. Every national academy of science on planet Earth (I believe there are 22 of them) has published a statement agreeing that human produced GHG emissions is the most likely explanation for current warming. How did they all arrive at the wrong answer?

. Why does the profit motive only affect climate science? Why doesn't it affect condensed matter physics, or ag science or geophysics?

. Why doesn't the profit and personal gain motive affect sensationalist media websites like Watts, Singer, Inhofe, Spencer etc. the same way it supposedly affects climate science?

@BOG: "Step - You are an ignorant fool."

Sadly your best argument so far.

""He can't simply assume that because man didn't warm up earth before (let's call that a negative correlation?), man is not warming up earth now."

look at what you are suggesting. Climate changed without man in the past. But somehow, because of man, climate is changing because of man. "Jane, you ignorant slut""

I did not suggest that. All I said is what you said before in this very thread: correlation =/= causation. Therefore your argument is completely invalid.
There's no need to pull your usual tricks of putting words in my mouth and assuming I have a point of view. I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy and logical fallacy. Nothing more, nothing less.

A good reaction to my post would be to try and argue why that is not hypocritical or a logical fallacy. What is not a good reaction, however, is to insult me, put words into my mouth, mock those words and pretend you're mocking anything I said and saying absolutely nothing in response to what I actually said.

"Show how man is causing climate change. A natural process that has been going on for centuries"

I don't think man is causing climate change.
I agree it's a natural process that has been going on for centuries. You see, you're really bad at putting words into my mouth because you are never even close to my actual point of view.

Now before someone puts more words into my mouth, I don't think man causes climate change, but I don't rule out the possibility that man influences climate change in some way. I think it's a *possibility*.

The problem with lots of people, not just BOG but he is the most obvious example in this thread and, atm, on this site, is overconfidence. BOG sees some poor arguments for climate change and that's all it takes to be absolutely certain about the opposite point of view. It would be good for BOG to realize everyone is wrong on occasion, and realize that there's always a chance you're wrong about such a subject, and perhaps use that as a reason to stop acting like a cocky know-it-all all the time.

That is all.

@ Jamiet
Please provide fact-based evidence of a single reputable scientific institution, or individual climate scientist, proposing that anyone who disagrees with them should be killed.

http://www.webcitation.org/6 8yy8NUJ

Not sure that this entirely answers your question. It does, however, go a considerable distance to. Unfortunately, a certain hyperbole exists on both sides of the debate and I was being a little bit of what you describe as a troll in attempt to stir the pot a little. I think that, with respect, those on your side of the argument need to differentiate between ''scepticism'' and ‘’denial’’. Personally, as you know, I feel that there are increasing grounds for scepticism without classifying myself as a denialist. Such a position would be as anti-science as those who unreservedly follow the cult of anthropocentric climate change nee global warming.

@ boylee

It's an odd sort or article, isn't it? Some of it I agree with, lots of it I find quite depressing.

To start at the top...

"Do prominent climate scientists agree with the primary conclusions?

No. Some leading scientists vocally disagree with the study, which also runs contrary to the prevailing view of experts that Antarctica has been losing ice mass over the past few decades."

That is pretty much the exact same line or argument climate change deniers have been using for decades. The "quick, find a scientist or two who disagrees and make a song and dance about the lack of consensus" approach. They then drag out Ted Scambos in an attack on peer review, which is pretty much the foundation of modern science. That I didn't like at all.

The next bit was also a little odd...

"University of Washington glaciologist Ben Smith, who was not involved with the study, points out that the technology might not be up to the task of distinguishing snowpack volume"

They get a scientist with no in depth knowledge of the study to say that the technology used might not be up to the job? Might not?!? I'm going to hazard a guess that Zwally, who was in the study and knows the equipment far better, has a different view. I am very much in favour of other scientists giving an educated critique of other people's methods, but only after they spend some time looking into it. An off hand "might not" doesn't cut it.


The next bit is really poor....

"If Antarctica’s ice sheets have indeed been growing overall, then why is the continent contributing to global sea level rise?

That’s a good question, says Scambos"

No, it isn't a good question. It's a really stupid question that anyone can answer. If Antarctica's ice sheets are growing it isn't contributing, and if they're shrinking it is. Not only is it a really stupid question, but after asking it they then don't bother answering it.


It redeems itself a little with the next bit

"If the Antarctic’s ice sheets are growing, what would that mean for global sea levels in the long-term?"

I largely agree with what it says here. Although the fundamental issue, that regardless of who's right about whether the ice is growing or not it is clear that a lot of very clever people have been wrong, is not addressed. Even worse, we don't know who is wrong. We have no idea what Antarctica is currently doing. And they ignore this! We have a gaping hole in the credibility of our Antarctic measurements and all we're getting is "well, the earlier studies were more or less the same" and "maybe his satellite didn't work"

That isn't good enough. That isn't worth writing an article about. You're a scientist too, and confidence in your method aside you know damn well that if your findings go against the grain, you don't get all excited and publish as soon as you can. You get bloody nervous and go to the nth degree to make sure you've not made an embarrassing cock-up.

@ kasimax

postet some of them before, going to post them again. not mine, copied and pasted from somewhere.

. What specific evidence would climate scientists have to produce to convince you that human caused GHGs are a significant contributor to the current global warming?
> Do you differentiate between CO2 and other asymmetric molecules (e.g., water vapour)? Be clearer please

. Do you believe there is a difference between long-term trend and variability?
> Define long-term. Are you talking in units of geological time, centuries, decades…? Be clearer please

. Name the title of one published paper that was corrected or retracted as a result of "climategate"
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
And as you brought it up here is one of the climategate emails:
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

. Why haven't any scientific papers been challenged for manipulation or fraud by Heartland, Watts, Singer, Inhofe, Curry, Spencer, Bastardi, Morono or any of the other deniers?
> I am not sure that this is true. In fact I am pretty sure that it is not. I will not, however, be put in a position by your question of unreservedly supporting the names you mention. I do, however, like this paper, read it if you have an open mind:
CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998) PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES
Stephen McIntyre 512-120 Adelaide St. West, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 1T1; Ross McKitrick
Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph Ontario Canada N1G2W1.
www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf

. If the climate science data is being faked/altered, then why do anti-science wackos cherry pick the climate science data to try to "prove" there is a global conspiracy?
> Not sure about the conspiracy bit myself. Except on the context of research grants, academic prestige etc.

. Every national academy of science on planet Earth (I believe there are 22 of them) has published a statement agreeing that human produced GHG emissions is the most likely explanation for current warming. How did they all arrive at the wrong answer?
> What is the confidence interval given?

. Why does the profit motive only affect climate science? Why doesn't it affect condensed matter physics, or ag science or geophysics?
> Are you serious? Take a look at life science and drug manufacturers

. Why doesn't the profit and personal gain motive affect sensationalist media websites like Watts, Singer, Inhofe, Spencer etc. the same way it supposedly affects climate science?
> Maybe it does, I don’t know. My point is that you need to retain an open mind. Sometimes it is better to question, rather than go with the flow.

Well I think the takeaway is that there is no clear consensus about whether the ice is actually shrinking or not. If I were to appeal to BOG's idea of "showmethefacts", it's not like they put the whole bloody continent on a scale to measure it every day. Their results are due to indirect observation, the method may or may not be correct.

I agree especially with your last point, whoever publishes these types of results don't publish it without a back-up check (like me on this forum), since they have a lot to lose.

At the same time though, formulating criticisim is usually just as carefully planned. I'm pretty sure this Smith dude doesn't dismiss this claim only because it contradicts earlier assumptions on what's really happening. It may be the thing that turned a lot of heads but if you care about your reputation you don't just say "it must be wrong, 'cause I read it somewhere".

Of course we see counter-examples of both. Take the Wakefield paper on vaccines and autism, that also made it past peer-review somehow. And I'm sure there's plenty of unfounded, retarded criticism of new results out there as well.

But I think, we as non-experts cannot decide who is right on the Antarctic ice, there's just no concensus. What they all seem to agree on is that ocean levels are rising, so the planet is warming up, and overall, we must be losing ice.

So even though there's debate on the source of the ocean levels rising, the whole dispute does nothing to contradict the existence, or the long-term effects of global warming.

Whether it's man-made or not... I still haven't found a paper that shows sunspot activity is somehow different nowadays than in the past, even though we have been gazing at the sun for about 500 years now if not longer. The Little Ice age in the 17th century, yeah, but not now.

Funny you should mention sun spots. I had a tutor back at uni who was a great believer in the correlation between solar activity and global temperature. He's a director at ESA now and probably wouldn't appreciate his name being mentioned in this thread (especially as I can't recall exactly what it was he said!), so as reliable data goes it's down there in the junk pile. I keep on intending to look into it properly though.

Be careful about mentioning the little ice age or mwp. Apparantly neither of them happened....at least that is The supposid consensus

I mentioned sunspots because that was BOG's ultimate point. I don't dispute the fact that it is correlated to temperature, but that doesn't make it the only factor, nor the most important.

Fulham why say Little Ice Age never happened?

@ fulhamish:

That link returns a 404 "not found" error, sorry.

Kas – Thank you for your response. I hope we can have a facts based discussion.

“What specific evidence would climate scientists have to produce to convince you that human caused GHGs are a significant contributor to the current global warming?”
Show the math. The only evidence of global warming are computer models, and these models are never right, and use fraudulent and incomplete data. The computer models were ‘surprised’ by the growth of ice and snow in the Antarctic. The models always predict 30 to 100 years in the future. Their predictions from 20 years ago are completely wrong. Human caused GHGs are .28% of the atmosphere. Show the relationship between a miniscule amount of CO2 and temperature change on the earth. And don’t forget to factor in the reality that CO2 is plant food. Trees, grass, algae in oceans live on CO2. They are a natural sink for CO2 and produce oxygen. So show the math. And show how the sun doesn’t affect the temperature of the earth. And explain what caused the last ice age, and why the last ice age went away. Explain the Maunder Minimum. For starters. Just show the math.

“Do you believe there is a difference between long-term trend and variability?”
Well, sort of. The problem is starting points, and predicting changes. For example, what was the long term trend from the beginning of the last Ice Age? What was the long term trend from the end of the last ice age? Change is the only constant.

“Name the title of one published paper that was corrected or retracted as a result of "climategate" . Why haven't any scientific papers been challenged for manipulation or fraud by Heartland, Watts, Singer, Inhofe, Curry, Spencer, Bastardi, Morono or any of the other deniers? . If the climate science data is being faked/altered, then why do anti-science wackos cherry pick the climate science data to try to "prove" there is a global conspiracy?
You say “anti-science” but there is no science on the side of the global warming zealots. Their ‘science’ are computer models that are always wrong.

“Every national academy of science on planet Earth (I believe there are 22 of them) has published a statement agreeing that human produced GHG emissions is the most likely explanation for current warming. How did they all arrive at the wrong answer?”
You don’t vote on science. Show the math. Have every national academy of science on planet Earth explain what caused the last ice age, and why the last ice age went away. And how man caused or ended it.

Why does the profit motive only affect climate science? Why doesn't it affect condensed matter physics, or ag science or geophysics?
Because there is more money in taxing carbon with the heavy hand of government..

. Why doesn't the profit and personal gain motive affect sensationalist media websites like Watts, Singer, Inhofe, Spencer etc. the same way it supposedly aff
Some people want the real truth, not a political agenda. But be specific in your question here.

Oct -" I had a tutor back at uni who was a great believer in the correlation between solar activity and global temperature."

Funny. All energy on the earth ultimately comes from the sun. Seriously, look at the relationship between sunspots and temperature on Earth. Research the Maunder Minimum.

What is the relevance of the Maunder Minimum, and what does it prove?