Erratic weather, shifted seasons - is this all down to global warming?

Is this all down to global warming?

No - you've just linked a Wikipedia site, if it was disproven then all the top scientists would agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes

Clearly some don't - it's still up for debate.

No - you've just linked a Wikipedia site, if it was disproven then all the top scientists would agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes

Clearly some don't - it's still up for debate.

So we were in an ice age, the Earth warmed without humans that was global warming? The earth has always gone through periods of warming and cooling, I'd suggest the effect of greenhouse gases is less than what is portrayed in the popular media.

It could be down to climate change, which is natural, since was a lot colder during the Ice Age and Victorian Era (seeing as the Themes froze during that age) but it was a lot warmer when the Romans were about (seeing as wine was grown in the UK). You also have natural occurrences like El Nino and La Nina which cause change in climate.

No Man, you made a reasonable effort but there are a couple of misconceptions which need challenging.

The fact that is was cooler or warmer or wetter or whatever before doesn't imply anything about the cause whatsoever. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest or ignorant.

Further, your point about ENSO events isn't strictly true. Oceanic oscillations are a form of internal variability of the climate system. To simplify it almost too far, it is simply a mechanism for transferring heat already stored in the system between the atmosphere and the ocean. In and of itself it doesn't cause changes in climate on decadal timescales, rather the oscillations react if you like to the shift in climate caused by other things.

My point is that the records don't go back far enough for people to be raving about humans recently changing the climate, since the climate has changed regularly in history.

Don't use the term 'Global Warming'.

There has in fact been no warming for quite a few years. A fact which has been deliberately understated by many.

Which is why climate campaigners have switched from using 'Global Warming' to the much more wishy-washy term 'Climate Change'.

No one is denying that the climate is changing. After all, the earth's climate has been changing one way or another for billions of years.

You only need to understand what global warming actually is to realise that you are talking a load of nonsense. The total heat content of the earth is still increasing which is deliberately ignored (or just not known) by people like yourself. If you look at surface temperature you only get half the picture, you need to look at the ocean as well. I suspect you don't mention that because it proves you wrong but then again maybe you just didn't know any of that.

Where did I mention I was relying purely on surface temperature in my post? I didn't.

I don't have the time or inclination to spend all day stating why it's 'climate change' not 'global warming', but you're welcome to provide proof of why you believe otherwise.

You might also want to work a little bit on tone. If you go onto the street and express an opinion, and someone poses a counter opinion, you then go on to tell them that 'they are talking a load of nonsense' and such and such is 'deliberately ignored by people like yourself.... but then again, maybe you just didn't know any of that' is often likely to be met with a response that doesn't include debating the finer points of global warming climate change. Now I know this is just the internet, but perhaps that's just the way 'you people' get your kicks.

Global warming and climate change are both perfectly accurate terms but then again what the hell do I know, I only study this. What is it that you have studied out of interest?

I've suggested exactly why global warming is still occuring above (if you want to read a study on ocean heating then have a look at this, I will link you to plenty more if you are interested in learning something). The fact that you think it isn't still occuring suggests to me that you don't really know what global warming actually is. You haven't stated why you don't think it is happening at all but if I had to guess you'd just point at the atmospheric temperature and completely ignore the ocean like everybody else who makes such a claim. Truth is, global warming is still happening, whether you agree or not.

As for your concern about my tone, it is duly noted and ignored.

"Here we report improved estimates of near-global ocean heat content and thermal expansion for the upper 300 m and 700 m of the ocean for 1950–2003, using statistical techniques that allow for sparse data coverage5, 6, 7 and applying recent corrections8 to reduce systematic biases in the most common ocean temperature"

Estimates. In addition, you completely fail to address my point that there has been "no warming for quite a few years". This is in fact, 2012.

Please try harder.

You can only suggest global warming has stopped when the atmosphere and oceans have stopped warming. This hasn't happened so how can you suggest it has stopped?

You really do not have a clue what global warming is quite clearly. I study this day in, day out. You won't put your money where your mouth is and provide any evidenec to back up your claim that the oceans and atmosphere have both stopped warming which is very telling I think.

You go on to state that you are somehow more qualified to comment on global warming because you study this day in-day out.

Hallelujah. The answer to the question that scientists have been arguing for years - is global warming real? Well, thanks to one no-name nobody Scottish student on TSR, have the definitive answer. And how do we know? "Because I study this day in, day out.

Isn't it amazing how the watermelons ridicule anything they disagree with?

This occurs even in the face of their flawed models failing to predict reality as the shorter range meteorological models have also done recently.

The 'global warming' crowd seem incapable of accepting that the Sun is the primary heat source and solar changes and cycles have great influence on our climate. All the figures I have seen seem to show global average temperature having a close cyclical relationship with solar activity.

From the GISS data, the CO2 concentration levels do not appear to drive the climate variability of the last century or the past 10 years.

It takes a leap of faith and some rather dubious statistical analysis to 'knock the square peg into the round hole' and make the irregular and erratic pattern of temperature variability correlate meaningfully with the smooth and regular rise in CO2 concentrations in the 20th century.

So go on, indulge me. You say there has been an increase in global average temperature since 1998, so tell me - how much has it risen by?

The raw data show the natural fall in 1998 after El Nino and no warming since. There appears to be a minor decline but a more pronounced decline could have been smoothed out by the manipulations referred to as Climategate.

I suppose you believe it's all down to CO2 as well.

I wouldn't say I'm more qualified but considering you don't know what global warming is and can't produce one peer reviewed paper to back up your claim I don't think you are quite as well informed as you think you are.

Climate scientists know global warming is real, that much really should be something everybody can agree on. Sadly, it seems that those who have no background (or very little) in climate science think they know better than climate scientists.

More work definitely needs to be done on improving the models, that much is certain. Far too many of them have underestimated the observed warming but models are getting better and better with each passing year.

I don't think any serious climate scientist would ignore the sun, you only need to look at the vast amounts of research on the sun to realise that. Solar activity alone cannot account for the long term trend though which is the important part. If you are basing your whole interpretation of climate science on a few graphs I would suggest you aren't going to learn very much.

That would assume that carbon dioxide is the only thing driving warming, which we can rule out straight away. The climate reacts to all sorts of forcings but without the warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions we simply cannot account for what we have observed.

You have yet to demonstrate that there isn't an energy imbalance (because you simply cannot) but once you do that I will be happy to show you the energy is still accumulating in the ocean and atmosphere even if the surface temperature (which is only a small part of the puzzle) has been pretty flat.

You are consistently ignoring the rather inconvenient point about oceans (which have continued to accumulate energy since 1998) and instead focussing on a small part of the puzzle (surface temperature). You are ignoring this because it disproves your notion that global warming has stopped. That is intellectually dishonest. That might work with other people who are ignorant about the climate but I can see through your pretty piss poor attempt at an argument (as I'm sure anybody with an education on the subject could).