Do you believe in Global Warming

[treetop]

Man ! I just love this debate. Just amazes me how narrow minded some people are.Thanks "RWood". Another feature of many global warming denyers esp city people is that they live in such an artificial environment ie heaters/air con. They need to get out into the country[and other countries] and talk to farmers/travelers and old people with an eye for the skies.[not oil company spindoctors]The evidence is all around us.

[Manukau heads obs]

one thing farmers will tell you here is that winters are not as cold, i.e less frosts
but the problem with that is that people remember either the good or bad...i.e extremes (real hot or real cold, and dont remember so much the in between, and so memory of past climate is not such a good thing

[treetop]

I have been fruit growing for 25 yrs [should have stuck with Meteorology] One thing I have learnt is that plants don't have memories but suffer and die when climatic conditions are no longer favorable .All over the world many old traditional crops are no longer possible to grow and new ones are being used that were once unrealiable .In the Bay of plenty we are able to grow avocados and kiwifruit at higher altitudes than 30 years ago as we are now forced to do so as good land goes into housing , ie there are some positive side effects to G.W. More late frosts have been an isscue recently [oddly enough] but this is more of a southern oscillation problem.

[Manukau heads obs]

yes, world wide studies, they have been able to show that plants (e.g flowering times /where they can grow), are showing a warming trend

[Manduke]

yes, world wide studies, they have been able to show that plants (e.g flowering times /where they can grow), are showing a warming trend

I cannot see solid evidence that this warming, if indeed is the case, is undeniably due to humans. I am still asking how global climate is measured, and by what, also how a blocking system differs from a slow-moving one, and further, why the variability of solar radiation should be factored out. There may have been signals of warming from the heat island effect of living too near the city sprawl, but many articles I read about are of widespread cooling. So, again, what studies have been done resulting in real rigorous empirical evidence of worldwide plants showing a warming trend? Not enough to say everyone knows it so it must be true.

[Manukau heads obs]

who said solar variability should be factored out
the recent deep solar minimum only made the global temperatures flatten out a bit
instead, combined with a La nina at the time, the global temperatures should have gone down

also how a blocking system differs from a slow-moving one,

do you mean a slow moving blocking system?
if so, what is the point of your question?

There may have been signals of warming from the heat island effect of living too near the city sprawl

climate scientists do know about this
and so do not ignore this
and so try and use where possible data that is not affected by this

[RWood]

yes, world wide studies, they have been able to show that plants (e.g flowering times /where they can grow), are showing a warming trend

I cannot see solid evidence that this warming, if indeed is the case, is undeniably due to humans. I am still asking how global climate is measured, and by what, also how a blocking system differs from a slow-moving one, and further, why the variability of solar radiation should be factored out. There may have been signals of warming from the heat island effect of living too near the city sprawl, but many articles I read about are of widespread cooling. So, again, what studies have been done resulting in real rigorous empirical evidence of worldwide plants showing a warming trend? Not enough to say everyone knows it so it must be true.

Further proof that you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Go and educate yourself instead of propagating ignorant nonsense.

[Manduke]

Further proof that you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Go and educate yourself instead of propagating ignorant nonsense.

And so I will ask again, because no one is offering any evidence. I regard evidence as universal and unequivocal, and I am asking for global stats that show global (no exceptions) temperature increases over the decades since post-war industrialisation, because that is the claim. Just for the record, I, too, haven't made up my mind, because I think it is not possible to tell, but your very revealing response tells me that there is probably no evidence, or it would be presented. If you think me ignorant, and you educated, then educate me with your evidence please.

[treetop]

The proof is in the temperature recordings and huge volumes of data that is being collected and also the rate of increase which is more concerning.Large cities will heat up more eg London on a 30 deg day will be up to 5 deg above the countryside surrounding it,which is an example of global warming on a small scale.

[Manduke]

The proof is in the temperature recordings and huge volumes of data that is being collected and also the rate of increase which is more concerning.Large cities will heat up more eg London on a 30 deg day will be up to 5 deg above the countryside surrounding it,which is an example of global warming on a small scale.

Okay, thanks, I accept that there is no proof, which is what I have suspected. There is only people saying "there is proof".

[treetop]

The predicted sun spot and solar radiation anomaly forcast in 20- 30 yrs will cancel out some effects of G.W for a while but that is not a cop out and we need to keep focusing on solutions to the problem and stop argueing about whether its happening or not.Its happening,Its man made and there are too many people on the planet consuming too much.Fires are increasing and photosynthesis is decreasing. FACT

[treetop]

Depends on your definition of proof "Manduke". Figures, measuremants recordings and observations are fine by me. I am not sure if anyone on this forum can help you ?.

[RWood]

The proof is in the temperature recordings and huge volumes of data that is being collected and also the rate of increase which is more concerning.Large cities will heat up more eg London on a 30 deg day will be up to 5 deg above the countryside surrounding it,which is an example of global warming on a small scale.

Okay, thanks, I accept that there is no proof, which is what I have suspected. There is only people saying "there is proof".

Read Vertigo's earlier post about fact, theory and hypothesis for a start. Then you may at least learn something about scientific method. There are no absolute "proofs" in empirical science - just in the abstractions of mathematics.

[MadDog]

The proof is in the temperature recordings and huge volumes of data that is being collected and also the rate of increase which is more concerning.Large cities will heat up more eg London on a 30 deg day will be up to 5 deg above the countryside surrounding it,which is an example of global warming on a small scale.

Okay, thanks, I accept that there is no proof, which is what I have suspected. There is only people saying "there is proof".

Manduke - please get your head out of the sand.

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

[nakiguy]

Manduke - please get your head out of the sand.

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html[/quote]

If you pick just one of your favorite examples of proof from your link, anything you want, you choose...I will be happy to explain why it is not proof of AGW.

[Manduke]

Depends on your definition of proof "Manduke". Figures, measuremants recordings and observations are fine by me. I am not sure if anyone on this forum can help you ?.

Thanks Treetop. Global figures, measurements, recordings and observations etc are fine by me too! Where can these be sighted?

[Bradley]

Further proof that you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Go and educate yourself instead of propagating ignorant nonsense.

And so I will ask again, because no one is offering any evidence. I regard evidence as universal and unequivocal, and I am asking for global stats that show global (no exceptions) temperature increases over the decades since post-war industrialisation, because that is the claim. Just for the record, I, too, haven't made up my mind, because I think it is not possible to tell, but your very revealing response tells me that there is probably no evidence, or it would be presented. If you think me ignorant, and you educated, then educate me with your evidence please.

I wouldn't worry about RWood Manduke, he's shown his true colours on this forum on a number of occasions...

[MadDog]

If you pick just one of your favorite examples of proof from your link, anything you want, you choose...I will be happy to explain why it is not proof of AGW.

Debunk the point on 'scientific consensus on climate change'

[Manukau heads obs]

And so I will ask again, because no one is offering any evidence. I regard evidence as universal and unequivocal, and I am asking for global stats that show global (no exceptions) temperature increases over the decades since post-war industrialisation, because that is the claim.

the word unequivocal is used here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[RWood]

The level of arrogant obstinate ignorance demonstrated here is breathtaking. But the world is moving on anyway.

[RWood]

Further proof that you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Go and educate yourself instead of propagating ignorant nonsense.

And so I will ask again, because no one is offering any evidence. I regard evidence as universal and unequivocal, and I am asking for global stats that show global (no exceptions) temperature increases over the decades since post-war industrialisation, because that is the claim. Just for the record, I, too, haven't made up my mind, because I think it is not possible to tell, but your very revealing response tells me that there is probably no evidence, or it would be presented. If you think me ignorant, and you educated, then educate me with your evidence please.

I wouldn't worry about RWood Manduke, he's shown his true colours on this forum on a number of occasions...[/quote]

Fine by me. Your position is untenable.

[nakiguy]

If you pick just one of your favorite examples of proof from your link, anything you want, you choose...I will be happy to explain why it is not proof of AGW.

Debunk the point on 'scientific consensus on climate change'

First of all you have to look at what the consensus of agreement is agreeing on....what question was asked of informed scientist ? If the question was " do you believe man has altered the climate " then even myself, who is a devout skeptic, would say.. yes. If you asked the question " do you fully support the IPCC position on AGW and now we need to disrupt the global economies of the world to force CO2 from the atmosphere " then the consensus is more likely similar to this forum...50%-50%. My answer would be ..No.
If you look at the history of scientific consensus, it has got an almost 99% fail rate...think Darwin...Think Einstein..think Galileo. These people and countless other pioneers of science absorbed the vitriolic attacks of the scientific consensus of the time.
When the figure of 97% consensus was first mooted by pro AGW advocates, Some of the signatories of it were horrified, and quickly set about constructing a counter to this propaganda tool, they managed over 30,000 signatories without much trouble.
So the 97% consensus is not proof of AGW....sorry....choose another if you like.

[Manukau heads obs]

so now deniers now agree that the climate is warming
but then they say its not due to CO2 levels increasing steadily
and so then we should do nothing about cleaning up the atmosphere?
is that what you are saying?

[Orion]

I would like to comment that I have found the level of hostility, in labelling posters and their opinions, on this thread very distressing, unnecessary and unhelpful.

[Manduke]

The level of arrogant obstinate ignorance demonstrated here is breathtaking. But the world is moving on anyway.

This has been a useful exercise, thanks. I came here looking for answers in the form of solid global stats if they actually existed. I thought meteorologists would be the group to point to them if AGW had been proven. Seems no.