Take a listen to yesterdays No Agenda podcast... They played some clips that were very interesting concerning climate change... I skipped to the climate stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah6zbNZckJ4#t=8066 please take a listen for 10 minutes or so.

Major problem with the models is that they don't acknowledge the sun's influence.

If you're referring to solar isolation and irradiance (the amount of the suns energy reaching the earth) and how they change through time, then you are wrong. A lot of them do.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=insolation+cycles+and+global+climate+change+models&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&as_ylo=2010&as_vis=1

That is not what I'm talking about. This is what I am talking about.

Bullshit

Care to explain why you disagree?

It isn't science

Link to something other than a youtube vid and I would be more than happy to look into it.

Right, those stupid climate-scientists completely forgot to account for the Sun. D'oh !

Most of them did. Search climate papers for "sun" or "solar" and you'll get very few results.

However the sun is not the primary driver in the current period of global warming that we're experiencing.

Huber and Knutti (2011): "Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950."

http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf

Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRD..11414101B

Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract

Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf

With little to no funding small research organizations get carbon dates of sediment/tree cores and publish their results in largely unread peer reviewed journals giving evidence to the anthropocene and human impact on our climate. see Journal of Paleolimnology

Also, with a lot of funding from NSF and others, large research organizations get carbon dates of sediment/tree cores and publish their results in largely read peer reviewed journals giving evidence to the anthropocene and human impact on our climate. see Nature

Humans inducing global climate change is scientific fact proven by many different groups large and small, which are funded by many different sources large and small.

EDIT: As far as arguments go, scholar.google.com, and see for yourself. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL017814/full https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdf

Scientific fact? I cant tell if you are being sarcastic.

Yes, scientific fact.

Ahh... I wonder then what your opinion of this exchange would be. Patrick Moore brings some interesting facts to the discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBWTJrS557E

there has been no warming in the RSS data from Dec. 1996 through July 2013 — a 200 month warming pause.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/09/03/rss-record-shows-200-month-warming-pause/

Not being a dick either, I honestly have been curious and like discussion.

Trend analysis (Mann-kendall trend analysis maybe) of global temperature from pre industrial times to present will show a significant positive trend.

If you run the analysis on global temperature from pre industrial times to 1996, the positive trend would just be stronger.

A long term perspective is important. The trend still exists.

EDIT: also, "no warming" is misinterpretation of the reduction in the slope of warming in the 21st century. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/pdf

Note: the "ocean as a heat sink" is not petty fogging the issue. It is based on sound science. http://www.sisal.unam.mx/labeco/LAB_ECOLOGIA/OF_files/heat%20sink%20led%20to%20global-warming%20slowdown.pdf

I think the end all to the climate change debate lies in the scientific evidence of how many Ice Ages the Earth has had.

Miklankovitch cycles explain the majority of the variation in the beginning and ending of ice ages over the past 1,000,000 years. But there is a CO2 threshold that is reached during the interglacials that start the advancement of glaciers and ice sheets. The higher the CO2 PPM in the atmosphere, the warmer the climate, and the later the ice age will start. Luckily, the current CO2 PPM is so high that we won't have another ice age no matter the current tilt and or placement of Earth's orbit. Which is a good thing. Under pre-industrial CO2 PPM, we would to expect have another commencement of an ice age after 2000 years, but not now.

My question is, do you even consider the other side of the debate or are you all in no matter what? I could find facts that support both sides.

Is one of those facts the medieval warm period, or the little ice age, or other pre-industrial histories? Like I said above, these facts were likely discovered by the same scientists that give evidence to human induced climate change. If you take all the facts and put them in fair order you will change your view. I only sound all in because this shit was my life a few years ago and I know the literature well.

Right, and your facts come from people paid to find those results. If they want more money would they not continue to give the science that supports your side? I can make the exact same argument as you, with non peer reviewed science included.

What makes you think these people wouldn't have jobs if they didn't believe in climate change? People still need to study glaciers, they still need to study ENSO, they still need to study ocean and atmospheric surface temperatures, etc. The vast majority of scientists from all over the world, ranging from PhD candidates to postdoctoral fellows to industry specialists all agree that climate change is happening and that humans are the main contributor and they openly publish their data and conclusions in scientific reports that are peer reviewed and made public through scientific journals.

I can cherry pick data all day long too but would you even consider it? Your mind is made up. Thats the problem with this debate. Nobody wants to budge, you cant hear the other side because you're all in. Personally I dont care as much as some do about it, because there is so much funding involved, my voice does not matter.

People will not get rich if we do nothing about climate change and those same people will get rich if we "fight climate change". Climate change is a bonanza, that is all. People only account for about 3% of the worlds co2 emissions. The rest is by natural processes.

My mind is not made up, but judging by each positions arguments and facts, I know which side I lean toward.

Climate change is a bonanza, that is all.

Tell that to my broke ass friends who are working towards their masters and PhD's. I have a degree in atmospheric and oceanic science. I have seen many arguments on both sides. I have spent years learning about this stuff in classes, working with biologists, working with computer modelers, and working with meteorologists and climate scientists. I am convinced by the evidence that I have seen and by the blatant misrepresentations of the evidence that I have seen by the other side. I am completely at a loss as to why you think that the people who study climate change are making money off of it. The majority of them are making 30-50k a year after 6-8 years of higher education.

I can cherry pick data all day long too but would you even consider it?

Let's see what you've got.

Edit: for the love of God, no blog posts or youtube videos please

Personally I dont care as much as some do about it

Use google

Like I said before, I've seen plenty of misrepresentations of what the evidence is. I have yet to see compelling arguments as to why we shouldn't be concerned about the impact that humans are having on global climate and I have seen entire textbooks and firsthand evidence from a variety of different fields as to why we should be concerned. If you point me to something that you find compelling, I'll give it a read.

The closest I've seen is the work of Judith Curry, but even her work points towards humans being the dominant factor in the recent warming trend. Her blog posts tend to be much more vitriolic and "denialist" than her actual scientific work.

Word

Well you're a fucking idiot. We're the ones doing science and not you.

Ahh yes, every intellectual ends their arguments with "shut up , stupid head". Just resort to name calling when your beliefs are questioned. And I'm the idiot?

Yeah, suck these NSF funded nuts!

If you really are in any way, involved in science, I fear for our future.

I'll get belligerent all I want when we stop talking about science. I was civilized when it was important and provided up to date knowledge, now that we're talking about beliefs and what might be happening, what I say is no longer important. So therefore suck these salty nuts

Nobody is taking science advice from you at this point. So thanks for that, I guess.

It wasn't advice if cited what I said. So suck my nuts, I guess.

there are plenty of scientists who study things like forests, ocean currents, the sun, ancient reefs who find that they are all correlated to climate change. I worked in a lab that studied coral proteins and how they are effected by a warming ocean. Ocean temperatures are going up, the jet stream is getting wavier causing pockets of hot air to stay in place and cause bleaching events across reefs (SSTs), pH is going down threatening the bottom of the food chain (plankton that are trying to build shells), plankton and tropical fish are able to move further to the poles....these are all observations that can support that the Earth is changing. We know that CO2 will affect ocean chemistry differently and we know that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 (20 lbs per gallon of gasoline).... but people continually will turn their cheek and act like ocean acidification isn't ALSO a link to human activities. At this point, if you refuse to believe that we are responsible because you can't personally feel the heat.....AT LEAST consider the fact that the ocean is becoming more acidic.

If money was in impetus, climate scientists, ecologists, geologists, marine biologists would go into other fields. Millions of dollars have been thrown at both sides of the argument for one reason or another. But in the end, good science has only come from my side and not yours.

Climate Change is more complex than just about any other scientific issue. Huge time-scales, incomplete data, interdisciplinary, involves human behavior, etc.

I think it's an issue where we just have to trust the consensus of the experts. A layperson can't pick out one chart or one argument and use it to prove/disprove the issue. See http://www.billdietrich.me/Reason/ClimateChange.html#Real for more.

Fortunately, most of the "fixes" for climate change are good things to do anyway, even if GCC is a hoax or something. Stop pollution, go to renewable energy, end our dependence on foreign oil, etc. Which then result in better health, better environment, fewer extinctions, etc.

And we can do things such as a carbon tax in a way that won't kill the economy. Make it revenue-neutral: refund all the money via a general income tax rebate. That penalizes carbon emission, without adding a net overall tax increase.

Yes climate change is real the debate is over how much influence people have had over it.

I think that to discount our role in climate change would be disingenuous at best and a flat out lie in the face of the facts. Maybe we dont have a huge impact over natural cycles but I dont think its a coincidence that noted increases in temperature happened just as the industrial revolution rolled around.

I know this is not a popular opinion on this sub...

But I think people do have a role its a debate over how much of a role we play in a natural cycle.

First "global warming" now "climate change". Interesting to note the last twenty years of stagnate warming of our planet may have been a reason for the name change. No doubt the industrial revolution had a larger impact on our environment that we're all comfortable with, but the history of this planet reveals many cycles and natural changes that are not included in mainstream debates and information outlets.

The only real debate anymore is with someone who is completely uneducated on the topic but spring-loaded with knee-jerk responses. If we wait for someone else to provide us with a thorough explanation of what the truth is, then how can we claim to know anything at all? CNN or FOX talking about climate change is going to push what CNN or FOX wants you think about climate change.

This is why we have peer review.

It's unfortunate that the majority of people don't know what peer review is.

Even more unfortunate is that many people don't understand that the academy can be captured, and be subject to groupthink, popular trends, funding and grant pressure, as well as peer pressure.

[deleted]

This is the biggest point for me. Money is the root of this whole debate. Not science.

Scientific journals and grant funding organizations are separate.

Here are the facts for you: Fact: The earth's climate is warming at a rate and into a temperature range never before experienced by homo sapiens.

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

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3294/20130801/climate-changing-10-times-faster-past-65-million-years.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/486

Fact: This is primarily due to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r4023876577568m3/

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

Fact: The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century and its role in the current warming of the planet has been confirmed through multiple lines of research. The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifyin­­­­­­­­­g carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation)­­­­­­­­­. Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measuremen­­­­­­­­­ts (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970).

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=josa-43-11-1037

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-1-6-759

http://www.stormingmedia.us/49/4989/0498907.html

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-indust­­­­­­­­­ri­a­l era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatur­­­­­­­­­es which is warming the planet. While fossil-fue­­­­­­­­­l derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo689.html

Fact: There isn't a single credible scientific body that has studied the issue that disputes the fact that human industrial activity is primarily responsible for the current warming trend throughout the world and is not warning us that it presents dire consequences for all of us if the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are not reduced.

http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-reaffirms-statements-climate-change-and-integrity

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148044717/Joint-science-academies’-statement-Global-response-to-climate-change

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.p

http://news.agu.org/press-release/american-geophysical-union-releases-revised-position-statement-on-climate-change/

Fact: The growing problem of ocean acidification is caused by increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and this poses dire consequences for the health of our oceans.

http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QwPqRGcRzQM5ffhPjAdT/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/3/414.short

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/report.shtml

The terms "climate change" and "global warming" are essentially interchangeable when they are used in reference to the pattern of overall warming of the earth's climate that we are currently experiencing. The term "climate change" was probably introduced in 1977 with the peer reviewed publication "Climate Change".

http://link.springer.com/journal/10584

It was Frank Luntz a Republican political consultant who popularized the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming

"...the last twenty years of stagnate warming of our planet..." As for this canard here's a fairly succinct response from the UK Met Office: "You only need to look at 1998 to see a record-breaking warm year caused by a very strong El Nino. In the last couple of years, the underlying warming is partially masked caused by a strong La Nina. Despite this, 11 of the last 13 years were the warmest ever recorded. Average global temperaturesare now some 0.75 degrees C warmer than they were 100 years ago. Since the mid-1970s, the increase in temperature has averaged more than 0.15 degrees C per decade." "As a result of such fluctuations [El Nino], global average temperature trends calculated over ten year periods have varied since the mid-1970s, from a modest cooling toa warming rate of more than 0.3 degrees C per decade. Similar behaviour is also seen in individual model predictions of future climate change where the long-term warming trend is forecast to exceed 2 degrees C per century. Even then, due to natural variations in climate, we expect to see ten-year periods both globally and regionally with little or no warming and other ten-year periods with very rapid warming. This complex behaviour of the climate system shows why we need to examine much longer periods than ten years if we are to fully understand and quantify how the climate is changing.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/i/6/warming_goes_on.pdf

Here's the big picture:

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/index.php

Why do you limit your perspective to the past 20 years? The scientists who discovered the planet's cycles and natural changes of the past also discovered our current roll in the planet's cycles and changes. We say climate change now because climate includes precipitation and temperature, warming just refers to temperature.

The people who should debate "how much of a role we play in a natural cycle" are ... the climate-scientists. And guess what they say ?

Know your audience. I know what climate scientists say but if you start off with that in this sub youll be downfucked into oblivion.

I was trying to remain as neutral as possible.

I don't care about up- or down-votes. I want to have an intelligent discussion.

"Climate change" is an absurd term that I won't use. As has been pointed out endlessly by critics, the climate is always changing and has always been changing. It was changing before the human species walked upright.

What the debate is about is man-made global warming, or anthropogenic global warming (know for short as AGW). The question is whether human activity is raising the global temperature of the planet with future catastrophic results.

If the temperature were rising, and nothing catastrophic were occuring, we wouldn't be talking about it, because it would be a matter of small importance. No, the crux of the AGW argument is that global warming, caused by human beings, is raising the planet's temperature to a level that will cause all sorts of catastrophic changes.

The answer is, no, human activity is not raising the global temperature of the earth by any amount that is significant enough to measure. Our impact on the global temperature is so small, it is unimportant.

A few facts:

• There has been no global warming for 18 years.
• The advocates of the AGW theory cannot account for this lack of global warming.
• None of the AGW scientists' computer models predicted this lack of global warming.
• Almost all of the predictions of future climate events made by pro-AGW scientists have been completely wrong.
• They predicted the polar bears were going extinct. Wrong!
• They predicted the Greenland ice cap would vanish. Wrong!
• They predicted that Arctic sea ice would disappear. Wrong!
• They predicted that the number of hurricanes would increase. Wrong!
• They predicted that the hurricanes would be stronger. Wrong!
• They predicted more forest fires. Wrong!
• They predicted deserts would spread. Wrong!
• They predicted sea levels would rise and flood costal cities. Wrong!
• They predicted massive increased deaths due to extreme heat. Wrong!
• They predicted the permafrost would melt, with countless dire consequences. Wrong!
• They predicted an enormous release of methane from the melting north. Wrong!
• They predicted Antarctic sea ice was shrinking. Wrong!
• They predicted massive increases of plagues around the world. Wrong!

Nothing these AGW cultists have predicted has come true. None of their computer models have been correct. They are complete and utter frauds. AGW is a fraud designed to transfer wealth and power to those who are running it. The mass of people who have embraced the AGW hypothesis are motivated by religious fanaticism. They are members of a modern cult, although most of them don't realize it.

AGW is supported by a combination of fools and crooks. The hypothesis is completely false, and claims made by its followers have been disproven countless times. All they have left is name calling and character assassination.

Here are the facts for you: Fact: The earth's climate is warming at a rate and into a temperature range never before experienced by homo sapiens.

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

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3294/20130801/climate-changing-10-times-faster-past-65-million-years.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/486

Fact: This is primarily due to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r4023876577568m3/

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

Fact: The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century and its role in the current warming of the planet has been confirmed through multiple lines of research. The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifyin­­­­­­­­­g carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation)­­­­­­­­­. Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measuremen­­­­­­­­­ts (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970).

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=josa-43-11-1037

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-1-6-759

http://www.stormingmedia.us/49/4989/0498907.html

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-indust­­­­­­­­­ri­a­l era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatur­­­­­­­­­es which is warming the planet. While fossil-fue­­­­­­­­­l derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo689.html

Fact: There isn't a single credible scientific body that has studied the issue that disputes the fact that human industrial activity is primarily responsible for the current warming trend throughout the world and is not warning us that it presents dire consequences for all of us if the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are not reduced.

http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-reaffirms-statements-climate-change-and-integrity

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148044717/Joint-science-academies’-statement-Global-response-to-climate-change http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.p

http://news.agu.org/press-release/american-geophysical-union-releases-revised-position-statement-on-climate-change/

Fact: The growing problem of ocean acidification is caused by increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and this poses dire consequences for the health of our oceans.

http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QwPqRGcRzQM5ffhPjAdT/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/3/414.short

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/report.shtml

BTW thats how facts are laid out, not as trivial talking points but backed up by clear scientific evidence.

My question is, do you even consider the other side of the debate or are you all in no matter what? I could find facts that support both sides.