You say that "people who feel strongly about this aren't going to recognize any conflicting info or facts" and I totally agree. Our society has created a huge avoidance from debate, leading people to staying within groups that agree with their own theory/beliefs. If anything this debate has forced me to research, look up, and reaffirmed my belief. There are many models and study that points to CO2 and the adverse affects on our environment, but few creditable source that support your claim. So aren't you one of the "people who feel strongly about this" and "aren't going to recognize any conflicting info or facts"?
If what you say is true and you do feel that way, then ....
This is how a debate works....
Someone puts forward info and then someone else tries to disprove it with other info or ideas. Together you mutually gain a better understanding
Let's look at the hockey stick. The hockey stick uses tree ring data until around 1970 when tree ring data no longer supported the hockey stick. So they then switched to thermometer readings. This is readily checkable, and keep in mind when checking, when your right there's reasons, when your wrong there's excuses.You can't compare apples to oranges and the current thermometer/weather station data is so flawed it can't be taken seriously. If you'd like proof of that it can be provided. NCEP data, from satellites, is the only accurate way to look at untainted data of the whole planet, including the oceans. Since it's satellites it only goes back about 35 years. You can't one year pick weather stations because it shows what you want, then the ncep because weather stations don't show what you want the next.
Here is ncep
You can see that last year was very warm, and there was some others very warm. Comparing that against only 35 years is hardly saying anything. Only being able to compare it to a warm pdo (pacific decadal oscillation) because the data only goes back so far, and claiming it's proof that we are and will continue to get warmer is trickery. You can also see a large time frame where temps fell while c02 continued to climb. That pic hardly looks like a hockey stick, eh
Solar cycles cannot be predicted. We are currently in solar cycle 24. The more active a solar cycle the more heat and radiation we receive. Solar cycles were building in strength until our current 24. Another reason for the warming. Lotsa people were saying 24 was going to be bigger than the last which is interesting because there is absolutely no way of knowing. Then 24 came and is as low as it's been in at least a century. Don't even want to get into that solar cycle 24 should have been ended and solar cycle 25 started because according to the rules set up long ago 24 went beyond the amount of days spotless that should have been, but...
The effects of a strong or weak solar cycle are mostly slow to be realized in terms of temp on the planet. But it's effects on slowing or speeding up the jet streams are pretty immediate. A weaker solar cycle means a slower jet stream. A slower jet stream means heat stays in the oceans with less wind to remove it. It also causes more north to south swings in the jet stream which is opposite of what a warmer planet, gw, was supposed to do. Yet more swings in the jet steam is what we have. You remember polar vortex?
this what was supposed to happen
this what did
Hurricanes where supposed to increase yet the ace index has been way down for decades now
The poles were supposed to be gone by 2013 and last time I checked they were still there. Which is why we are technically still in an ice age. And with oceans cooling around both poles now that isn't going to change anytime soon
Last edited: