Flint: You said if someone could disprove surfacestations.org then you would give them $1000, it was disproved why are you still whining? You can't say the study was wrong when the study doesn't agree with your warped worldview. The stations pointed out had a cooler bias, not a hotter one as said by your source, thus your source was wrong, they might be right with their new paper, but I doubt it. The website is wrong and it has been proven, so start sending that money through.... I have a football ticket to buy....

All that subjective garbage pretending to substitute for better data is not science.

So you're argument, like kemp, is that you are not wrong because you say so.... right, awesome...

how about "We can't claim to state temperatures for times and places that we didn't actually measure, so, from a serious professional standpoint we will leave it at that, instead of announcing we can guess if we invent numbers and then invent a correction to the sum."

No, instead they said "We invented numbers for a lot of places, and when we correct for our guesswork --the Batcomputer spotted a trend! "

When the whole of a profession adopts error as sensible, it does not raise error to the level of respectable fact.
It diminishes the profession.

My argument, You_Fool, is that there's no science making a strong case for your claims.

You haven't even pointed to a single definitive study showing what you claim can be shown because none exists. All studies on the topic are hardly scientific. They work with very limited data and extrapolate to a ridiculous extent. They work with inconsistent instruments and frequently use subjective "adjustments" to correct for their insufficient instruments and insufficient data--and, sometimes, as has been exposed, these "corrections" are politically motivated to intentionally skew data. They're not producing any hard scientific findings.

I've repeatedly questioned the science behind your claims. There are very clear problems with the methods used. Repeatedly glossing over this fact is not very scientific of you.

And taking this tale at its word is the same as trusting the pseudo scientists who tell us that man is certainly warming the climate!

We operate in secret. You are not worthy of the Dark Lord's wisdom!

Einstein.

The basics of the science is this.

Get a carbon dioxide atom in a lab. Throw some radiation at it, it absorbs it, and gains energy.
Measure the amount of carbon dioxide that comes off burning coal. It is alot.

If we are going to argue on climate change, [to hell with] statistics and show me with science what the world is doing, and how it is doing it.

Think on this.

If i walked into you on the street, and punched you in the face, i could show you graphs saying that statistically i never punched you the face, because as once in my 23 years of life it is a statistical outlier and gets removed. Now, ask yourself. Did i punch you in the face?

So in science terms.

Are humans emitting a gas that absorb energy from the sun, increasing the net energy in the earths system? Yes we are. Can i show you valid statistics that show that the CO2 increase currently is not outside natural boundaries? Yes i could. But i can ask you, are we, or are we not emitting CO2?

Also, to make another point. The fact you are making your argument with data from America, from the land, shows how [much, if at] all you understand about the climate system. The ocean is what is important, and the poles are what we expect to warm the most at this stage. And really all we are arguing is a net increase in the energy of the earth system that is due to humans. The way the system deals with this is still open to debate.

It is entirely feasible that the increase in energy will lead to net cooling to many parts of the world from the decrease in efficiency of heat distribution as many of the atmospheric and ocean process are driven from heat differences. So as the poles warm, the heat difference gets less and circulation decreases.

Also, as an aside, break down the temperature changes you are seeing. Can you show me where they are coming from? What if the world cooled naturally by .7 of a degree, while being warmed by the carbon dioxide we emitted by .5? The net change is minus .2, but we still warmed the darn planet.

And again, i re-iterate. There are alot of people who will manipulate statistics to make their point, for and against climate change. But you gotta get past all that bullshit and look at the scientific facts. Not get caught up in the politic manoeuvrings of people who want the world to be greener and people who want to abuse the world for all its got.

SCIENCE is important. Not statistics.

(and, for my particular topic, the ocean in the antarctic has been warmer over the last decade, and it has caused a fast increase in the ice loss of Antarctica, increases in rainfall may mitigate sea level rise from this, but it doesn't change the fact the ocean is warmer, and the ice is melting faster down there. The Ozone hole has played a role in this too, which is man made (unless your argueing that too))

I think we've argued about this before, so don't bother arguing that. Unless you've gone and studied chemistry at university.

Regardless of anything, the fact is climate change might be caused by humans, or it may not be caused by humans. Both may be correct, but my argument is those arguing that we are not causing it cannot provide any physical mechanisms to show how the changes are occurring otherwise. Statistics are not a mechanism.

Lol. Your reply just shows how much you are not a scientist. You didn't even understand what i meant by mechanisms.

I'll help you. The milankovitch cycles change the amount of radiation the earth receives from the sun, and changes in the earths climate has been seen as a result. This is a mechanism that causes change.
The albedo of ice is less then land or ocean. If the total glacial area extent decreases, the amount of sunlight absorbed by the earth increases. This is a mechanism.

So, when you say us putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not causing the energy (not the use of the word energy, not temperature, big difference) into the earth system,and is doing nothing, what i want you to show, is how.

Show me how carbon-dioxide does not absorb radiation.
Show me how the burning of carbon does not release CO2 into the atmosphere.
Show me how.

Don't just say "it was changing in the past naturally its changing now" or "these sites when statistical analysed by people who want to see no change"

Zidi

Issue #1 Ozone Hole
Supposedly (and I say this correctly) CFC's in the upper atmosphere have a lifespan of 50 years.

Since world usage of CFC's has not ended (though they statistically dropped dead) this means there should be continued stability in the counts.

However the CFC count is dropping according to NASA. This means the 'scientists' involved are factually incorrect one that.

Then there is the matter of a four year period where the hole shrank from 29 to 22 million square kilometers. Combine that with the record huge size in 2011 and the record return to 100f healed (something it does annually, fully healing) and we see patterns we cannot account for.

Issue #2
Polar Ice Cap in Antartica
The cap is growing, is pushing out thinner shelf ice (which breaks in warmer currents) due to the massive increases in ice on the landmass.

Issue #3
Carbon versus H2O
H2O is unique that there are four recordable variations on Earth. Ice/Snow, Water (Oceans, Lakes, Rivers, Seas, and Ponds for example), as Clouds, and as a form known as Humidity (loose molecules)

Ice and Snow being highly reflectant, water being partially reflectant and partially absorbant (different waves, diffeent reactions), clouds being mostly relectant and Humidity being highly absorbant.

One must also consider two days with no clouds, temperatures differing, no wind, no other significant weather changes except... humidity (and no changes in carbon levels). The heat drops!

Humidity is so much more so (those loose water molecules) an absorber of heat than carbon as to make the difference between an A cup woman and Dolly Parton (prior to breast reduction surgery)

Btw the carbon is that A cup lady.

Your argument is 'we are clearly making a difference' where my argument is 'everything is well within natural variability' and 'the data sets are corrupt' and 'the calculations are in error' and 'politics hijacked this as a means of "world equality" and wealth redistribution (including into a new group of soon to be super rich individuals)', and finally 'proof exists of academic fraud by those pushing this agenda'

Face it the Carbon levels are within noted natural variability, the temperatures are within natural variability, and the mechanisms of Earth have the issue well in hand.

In Conclusion: the Ozone Hole shows a huge variability, CFC levels fluctuate somehow against the declarations of 'your' scientists, the Ice Caps, since recordings have ever been taken, show a normal level of variability, and other indicators have shown a level of variability.

Life also works in side this huge temperature difference we get over a typical year. While a late snow can cost us Oranges, melons, and grapes.. the plants themselves usually live on.

Life will go on despite the natural weather differences that happen.

Yes. Carbon dioxide is an A cup.

Positive feedback.

Carbon Dioxide increases the temperature by a small amount
This small amount reduces the amount of ice on land and increases the water in the atmosphere
Water is a bigger absorber of energy then C02, so the temperature increases further. The reduction of Albedo increases the temperature in the atmosphere.
This increase then reduces the amount of ice on land and increases the water in the atmosphere
This then increases the temperature...

You get the idea. Its not that simple, the earth is complex. The net result may be cooling through mechanism we do not yet understand. But we know humans have emitted CO2 into the atmosphere, and have not recorded and significant eruptions to cause the current increase seen in C02 in the atmosphere, and based on our current knowledge we can say with some certainty (but not completely certain obviously) that we are contributing (not causing, contributing).

As for your response to the Ice Caps...i'm not even sure where you read that. I work with people who have walked out onto these ice shelves and taken measurements. They are melting from warm water flowing onto the continental shelf, which is melting the underside of the glacier. None of them have broken up. We have no evidence that snowfall is increasing (but our data is sparse, we expect it to increase, but we haven't seen it yet). Give some of the papers below a read.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Velicogna%202009.pdf
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~tcreyts/GRG/rignotetalNatureGeosci08.pdf
http://brage.bibsys.no/npolar/bitstream/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_8502/1/MonaghanScience2006.pdf
ftp://171.64.168.31/pub/dunbar/IODP%20Adelie%20Drift%20and%20Holocene%20Relevant%20Papers/Vaughan%20Clim%20Change%202003.pdf

@v.Kemp

Apologies, i naturally meant, show a possible mechanism.

@Flint
Corruption and greed is a human trait. I really really hope no-one has purposely corrupted a data set that has been spread out for use. I won't rule it out though. But you have to acknowledge its just as likely that the people arguing against climate change may have been corrupted just as those arguing for. Particularly in the US there is alot of money, from oil companies and the like who don't want climate change occurring. Its an absolute shit fight and both sides have reduced what should be a scientific debate into a pure politic shit fest. I think alot of what gets said from both sides is absolute bullshit. People who come out with climate models who say things like "Australia is likely to be drier in the next 100 years" i hate. Our models aren't good enough to make sweeping statements like that. A correct statement is "60% of our simulations showed a decrease in rainfall, 20% showed no change, and 20% showed an increase". But you can see how quickly in the press and politics that a statement like that can be reduced to "Australia is likely to be drier in the next 100 years" so quickly.

All i can tell you is the datasets i'm using, which is those of Australian Antarctic Division, are raw and unmodified in any way when i start using them.

Also, i'll make it clear, i just think with what i've been presented and taught, that its likely we are having an effect. And, even a small effect can lead to positive feedbacks. And the real issue is, once we kick start a small mechanism of change, natural responders will occur to this, and honestly i don't really think us reducing our emission will make a huge difference. Whatever is happening, its already happening. What i'm interested in is understanding the changes we are observing in the ocean currents and the ice caps. Whether these are human induced or a form of natural variability doesn't change how i go about understanding what is occuring.