Australian expert Ian Simmonds on Climate Change

Both - they are not incompatible - and you have failed to prove that they are

- - - Updated - - -

Proof!!!!

 

Have a look for yourself and use your brains.

 

I have been looking on the net for raw temperature data but I have been unable to find any. I can only find data that has been manipulated, never the actual temperatures as recorded by the various recording stations.
Can anybody give me a link to the actual, raw measurements.

 

So, you think actual observations, that is measurements and facts, are wrong? When computer models do not match observational science, then the models absolutely are incompatible with fact.

 

In other words ... you don't have any

 

so all these are wrong and you are right?

 

You should try something more current. As it is from the latest statement that you posted we have had 6 to 7 more years of no warming, to the point that we now have something like 52 differing explanations for it. Why? Because the observational science is now way out of line with the hypothesis. Then there are problems like the American Physical Society who will be coming out with another statement after the fiasco of the last one where a couple of people unilaterally put out that statement and some leading scientists quit the society because of it. For the American Meteorological Society and the Geological Society, their statements are quite out of line with at least 40 to 60 percent of their rank and file.

Words mean little if they cannot be backed up and observational science is not backing them up.

 

http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...ime-in-24-months/story-e6frflp0-1227091140102

Oh dear, these freaky and record breaking COLD events just keep coming.

 

So you can't do it but demand that others do?

 

Are you denying that we have had a lot of unusual and recording breaking cold events this year?

 

Mate,as you can see he won't answer questions, just divert. He has no understanding of most of what he talks about and his response to this post is a perfect example. He has been told 100's of times how global warming can cause record breaking cold events. He has been told about changes in air currents and has been given enough links to sink a ship. Actually, this thread is about why we see increases in ice at the south pole, what affects warming has and what effects fresh water has when mixing with salt water.

According to him it must be winter now because he feels cold, but tomorrow he says oh now it's summer because it is hot. His logic is off with the fairies.

 

Changes in Global temperatures either up or down will cause changes in climate that are unpredictable because we have no data, all we have is models. We can sit on our hands and do nothing, it won't affect us, or we can look to our grandchildren's future.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-intermediate.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/25/world-2014-extreme-weather-events
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/06/can-global-warming-be-real-if-its-cold-in-the-u-s-um-yes/
http://grist.org/news/how-to-respond-to-people-who-say-the-cold-weather-disproves-global-warming/
http://www.livescience.com/43033-polar-vortex-means-record-warm-alaska.html
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/is_weird_winter_weather_related_to_climate_change/2742/
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/nasa-cold-snaps-global-warming-20130129
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/arctic-blast-linked-global-warming-20140106
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/07/this_freezing_weather_could_be_a_sign_of_global_warming_newscred/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/01/25/no-global-warming-isnt-suddenly-a-myth-because-its-really-cold-outhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2014/01/140108-cold-weather-polar-vortex-global-warming-climate-science/
http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1321:_Cold
http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/unusually-cold-july-comes-to-a-cold-wet-conclusion/
http://digg.com/video/why-unusually-cold-weather-does-not-mean-global-warming-is-fake
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/07/polar-vortex-update/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expect-more-extreme-winters-thanks-to-global-warming-say-scientists-2168418.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/the-most-common-fallacy-in-discussing-extreme-weather-events/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100283130/both-extreme-hot-and-extreme-cold-weather-is-likely-to-be-caused-by-global-warming-say-scientists/
http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2014/01/08/bad-weather-as-evidence-for-global-warming/
http://news.discovery.com/earth/cold-winter-snow-weather-global-warming-101222.htm
A little reading for you, I know you won't but someone else might and learn something.

by the way, these are called links, people use them to back up what they say, it's a little more scientific then sticking your finger out the window and saying it's cold so therefore global warming does not exist.

 

Yes you have been busy looking for support for your beliefs. Now how about you google 'global cooling' or something similar. You will find you can get a list of links disputing your list above. Fact is DV, the agw cultists are winging it. They are constantly changing their theories, changing the data, moving the goal posts, aggressively discrediting any dissent all the while quietly sweeping under the carpet all their failed predictions and the failure of their theories to predict actual observations.

 

Okay -let us do that and see what we get - first cab off of the rank is Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Hmmmm - does not seem to support your hypothesis (if there is one).
second cab off of the rank is the British rag known as the "Daily Fail" for the vey well known inability to add actual scientific facts to any reporting. In fact it is David Rose - the Andrew Bolt of Britain
Here he is demonstrating his inability to understand the term "trend"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...LING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

Or come to that - "Cherry Pick' because he picked only two small time frames to compare and ignored THIS

I
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-in-2013-is-sixth-lowest-on-record/

Whoopsie! David seems you have compared a small recovery 2013 with an all time low in 2012 =

]
The fourth is even worse - using Easterbrook, who has been debunked it is a pseudoscientific think tank full of generalisations, unreferenced (*)(*)(*)(*)e outright lies and misrepresentations
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
I could go on but the point I am making is that you have responded to a list of scientific references with a suggestion to "go Google' when in fact all that is turned up on that search term is unreferenced rubbish

 

Of course you will find lots of links to AGW because it is the cause du jour. The problem it that it is all based on computer models with insufficient data. GIGO, garbage in, garbage out, or in the case of AGW, Gospel in, Gospel out.

 

Yes, "current scientific opinion". Do I really need to give you some examples of past 'current scientific opinion'?

Trouble with the graphs of your 'trends', as I have pointed out before, the data and ranges are all mantipulated to always give a dramatic warming trend. If you look over time you will see for yourself how the agw cultists keep changing the data but worse still, they use manipulated data as a base for their manipulated graphs!

An all time low???? Don't you mean the lowest recorded by satellites? and you foregot to mention that the ice extent has increased every year since the low of 2012, a 'substantial' increase the following year. It would appear that the 2012 low was the anomaly, and not the 'proof' of global warming trumpeted by the alarmists.

A list of scientific references? I don't have the time right now but I will go through your list of 'scientific references' and just see how scientific they they are. Debunked by who? A group of agw cultists that he is disputing? Unreferenced rubbish? no more than the unreferenced rubbish you can find on warmist sites.

 

Actually yes that would be a nice change

 

You know, if it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

 

I know defending Easterbrook is like dating Christopher Monkton - it can only be done following bilateral lobotomy

 

Har har har! only a witch would defend a witch. Right BB?

 

Which witch is which?

 

Why the wicked witch of course!! And this is the saddest aspect of denialism = so much is driven by world view bias rather than science or facts

 

My previous reply which obviously went over your head is a reference to the attitude of the Inquistors of the middle ages. They maintained that only a witch would stand up in court to defend someone accused of being a witch. There are close parallels to the attitude of agw cultists toward anyone who comes out in support of, or defence of, agw sceptics. Anyone no matter how qualified or experienced who does not embrace the agw doctrine is immediately branded a 'denier' (heretic) and anyone who gives support to that person is also immediately branded a 'denier'. Once a person has been branded a denier, regardless of their qualifications or experience, anything they have to say is dismissed out of hand as untruthfull heresy by the agw cultists.

 

Incorrect. If you show me science I will look at it honestly. I down not want Global Warming to be true. I truly hope you are right.

 

The funny thing about this particular debate is ... I pray you are right. I am gambling a few thousand dollars a year. You are gambling the futures of our children and grandchildren. Possibly the survival of mankind.

Good luck.