Climate change - Hoax ?
Comments
-
Porgy wrote:Scrumple wrote:Climate change is a clever way of raising more tax. I'm fed up of hearing "our childrens' children".
Only someone who has no idea of the history of cimate change science could say this.
Climate change theory began decades ago amongst a small number of scientists who managed to persuade the majority of scientists with good evidence and as recently as a couple of years ago climate scientists were being threatened with dismissal and/ or funding withdrawal if they took a line of supporting the view that man made climate change was significant.
Even the British government have yet to fully accept that climate change is real - otherwise they'd be doing far more than putting up a few taxes and banning lightbulbs.
so what sort of conspiracy is that - one that started in a tiny number of scientists who endured decades of ridicule and threats, who just recently have managed to win their arguments despite these threats.
Anyone who believes this is a conspiracy has a screw loose imo - unless they can provide some evidence?
Hmm, no you're wrong.
Were you aware that the original models on which most governments and the IPCC depend were created using flawed data. They took decades worth of observations and threw out all the ones that didn't fit their model.
Are you aware there are some staggeringly good climatologists the world over who have been thrown out of IPCC and various other climatology faculties (for want of a better word) for their heresy regarding AGW and CC in general.
Have some FACTS:
Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour our Global average surface temperature would be around -15°C (4°F), instead of slightly more bearable 16°C (62°F).
“Global cooling is the dominant force controlling Earth’s climate change. Whenever the global cooling dynamo slows down, global warming occurs naturally.”
Inexorably linked to solar activities however if we didn’t have the greenhouse gases we’d be perpetually in conditions similar to Northern Canada. If it’s correct that the Earth would be perpetually cold without the greenhouse effect the engine generating the heat within the atmosphere is undeniably linked however, to what extent does this go to?
“Much of the fear surrounding the man-made global warming theory is associated with rising carbon dioxide levels. Current carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere as of January 2007 is 383 parts per million by volume. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been accurately and meticulously measured beginning around the year 1812.
There are more than 90,000 accurate atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements made by various scientists and documented over the past 180 years. Most of these measurements were indiscriminately thrown out by the architects of the Man-Made Global Warming Theory.
Ernst George Beck recently reviewed these early measurements combining the results from several studies and his paper titled “180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” was published in Energy & Environment, 2007, Volume 18, Number 2.
This paper concluded actual measured atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher than current levels in the recent past. The high level maxima’s occurred around 1825, 1857 and 1942. The carbon dioxide levels in 1942 exceeded 400 ppm.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is neither unusual nor abnormal but fits well within the range of measured levels during the 19th and 20th centuries.“ Marusek 07
I first heard this in a lecture I attended by Stephen Wilde about 20 years ago. When we create models we create a base line for successive runs, each time it goes through a process called parameterisation. Now if we throw out all the data we don’t like where should we start. If IPCC and the AGW folks are going to continually ignore data they don’t like at the start point, where will it finish up.
Ensemble forecasting takes a single model and runs with 51 different starting parameters to give us a forecasting tool to look beyond day 10, it has some really superb potential. There has been a call to do something similar in the Hadley Centre with Climate modelling but there is significant obstruction because the funding is not forthcoming, someone, somewhere is preventing it…….
www.co2skeptics.com its interesting!!
ps...i'm not an engineer...I'm a meteorologist, have been for 25 years0 -
One day the sun will expand and swollow the earth. True story, tell a friend.
This is like standing on the decks of the Titanic and agonising about the rain. :P
0 -
socrates wrote:Porgy has not put up any argument as far as I can see. All he has done is repeat what the climate change scaremongers have been saying. Now suddenly there seems to be a change of attitude among sections of the scientific community and oh dear what will we do.
I have not heard Porgy or anyone tear apart the data in the links that I published in my post. Sure I have seen him "dispute" the persons integrity and their qualifications but not their findings in any way.
Hold your horses - I haven't had time yet - got home at ten yesterday evening and straight into a meeting this morning - I've got to get some work done this afternoon - after all that's what they pay me for.
I have read the article - but putting together a refutation will take a bit longer.0 -
Slapshot wrote:Porgy wrote:Scrumple wrote:Climate change is a clever way of raising more tax. I'm fed up of hearing "our childrens' children".
Only someone who has no idea of the history of cimate change science could say this.
Climate change theory began decades ago amongst a small number of scientists who managed to persuade the majority of scientists with good evidence and as recently as a couple of years ago climate scientists were being threatened with dismissal and/ or funding withdrawal if they took a line of supporting the view that man made climate change was significant.
Even the British government have yet to fully accept that climate change is real - otherwise they'd be doing far more than putting up a few taxes and banning lightbulbs.
so what sort of conspiracy is that - one that started in a tiny number of scientists who endured decades of ridicule and threats, who just recently have managed to win their arguments despite these threats.
Anyone who believes this is a conspiracy has a screw loose imo - unless they can provide some evidence?
Hmm, no you're wrong.
Were you aware that the original models on which most governments and the IPCC depend were created using flawed data. They took decades worth of observations and threw out all the ones that didn't fit their model.
Are you aware there are some staggeringly good climatologists the world over who have been thrown out of IPCC and various other climatology faculties (for want of a better word) for their heresy regarding AGW and CC in general.
Have some FACTS:
Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour our Global average surface temperature would be around -15°C (4°F), instead of slightly more bearable 16°C (62°F).
“Global cooling is the dominant force controlling Earth’s climate change. Whenever the global cooling dynamo slows down, global warming occurs naturally.”
Inexorably linked to solar activities however if we didn’t have the greenhouse gases we’d be perpetually in conditions similar to Northern Canada. If it’s correct that the Earth would be perpetually cold without the greenhouse effect the engine generating the heat within the atmosphere is undeniably linked however, to what extent does this go to?
“Much of the fear surrounding the man-made global warming theory is associated with rising carbon dioxide levels. Current carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere as of January 2007 is 383 parts per million by volume. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been accurately and meticulously measured beginning around the year 1812.
There are more than 90,000 accurate atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements made by various scientists and documented over the past 180 years. Most of these measurements were indiscriminately thrown out by the architects of the Man-Made Global Warming Theory.
Ernst George Beck recently reviewed these early measurements combining the results from several studies and his paper titled “180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” was published in Energy & Environment, 2007, Volume 18, Number 2.
This paper concluded actual measured atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher than current levels in the recent past. The high level maxima’s occurred around 1825, 1857 and 1942. The carbon dioxide levels in 1942 exceeded 400 ppm.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is neither unusual nor abnormal but fits well within the range of measured levels during the 19th and 20th centuries.“ Marusek 07
I first heard this in a lecture I attended by Stephen Wilde about 20 years ago. When we create models we create a base line for successive runs, each time it goes through a process called parameterisation. Now if we throw out all the data we don’t like where should we start. If IPCC and the AGW folks are going to continually ignore data they don’t like at the start point, where will it finish up.
Ensemble forecasting takes a single model and runs with 51 different starting parameters to give us a forecasting tool to look beyond day 10, it has some really superb potential. There has been a call to do something similar in the Hadley Centre with Climate modelling but there is significant obstruction because the funding is not forthcoming, someone, somewhere is preventing it…….
www.co2skeptics.com its interesting!!
ps...i'm not an engineer...I'm a meteorologist, have been for 25 years
Well done for engaging on the issues - I'll have to save this up for the weekend though.0 -
socrates wrote:When Porgy has finished tearing apart the Mail he can start on another "charlatan" in the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ation.html
i read this last night as well0 -
johnfinch wrote:socrates wrote:When Porgy has finished tearing apart the Mail he can start on another "charlatan" in the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ation.html
Sorry, but Porgy'll take this one apart for sure.
Christopher Booker has a history degree, which allows him to make such wise and learned statements such as Darwinism rests on blind faith:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ebook.html
White asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder and is no threat to human health:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ebook.html
and there is no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ebook.html
So not a charlatan at all.
you're absolutely right but i made a promise not to dwell on personalities but to engage with the evidence.0 -
early thoughts - Plimer doesn't like citing his sources too much - or at all in this article. I'm having to cross reference to extracts from his book to find out what his sources are. It's going to take a while. And all this on an extremely slow computer, at work, and with restrictions on what website i can access. :?
Still - I'm enjoying reading all the climate change stuff - I can even justify it as being work related what with the Climate Change Act kicking in soon.0 -
socrates wrote:So what you are saying is that as he only has a history degree and you do not agree with what he says then he does not know what he is talking about. Excellent argument.
No, that's not what I was saying at all. I never said anything of the sort. You challenged Porgy to start on another "charlatan" (your speech marks, not mine), and I was simply saying that he is a charlatan.
If someone says that Darwinists operate on nothing but blind faith, and that white asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder, then what can I say? That he's obviously an excellent journalist who does all of his research thoroughly, and checks it with experts before going to print?
My own knowledge of this whole issue is, at the moment, basic. Until I have studied the subject in greater detail, and gained a deeper understanding of science, then I will not start making statements which are beyond my knowledge. I can, however, recognise a complete BS argument when I see one.
The Professor Whatshisname I wouldn't say that he doesn't know what he's talking about, because the article you linked didn't really give much of a clue to his own thinking, but this Telegraph article is written by a man who has repeatedly made false scientific statements.0 -
socrates wrote:So what you are saying is that as he only has a history degree and you do not agree with what he says then he does not know what he is talking about. Excellent argument.
Booker is a clown. If you knew anything at all about climate science (or even science come to that) you'd recognise him as the borderline moron he is. I don't have the patience of the others here trying to explain to you the basics of the scientific method and why obvious idiocy is obvious idiocy, I just think that it's a bit sad you've got to this stage in life without being able to understand simple logic or present an argument that's not a strawman. Are you 14?0 -
Seanos wrote:socrates wrote:So what you are saying is that as he only has a history degree and you do not agree with what he says then he does not know what he is talking about. Excellent argument.
Booker is a clown. If you knew anything at all about climate science (or even science come to that) you'd recognise him as the borderline moron he is. I don't have the patience of the others here trying to explain to you the basics of the scientific method and why obvious idiocy is obvious idiocy, I just think that it's a bit sad you've got to this stage in life without being able to understand simple logic or present an argument that's not a strawman. Are you 14?
A career in the diplomatic service awaits you sir!
On the subject of Booker, you'd think that having made one massive scientific cock-up he's learn his lesson and check his facts the next time. But no, again and again he comes out with these completely unfounded statements. The sad thing is, on a subject like asbestos, he crosses the line between being incorrect and being dangerous to anyone who might read his article and believe him.
It makes you wonder - if he can keep churning out articles on subjects he clearly knows nothing about, how low are the standards of our print media? :shock:
It's a pity really, as he has campaigned in the past against the construction of monstrous concrete blocks in British towns and cities, which makes him go back up somewhat in my estimation.0 -
Seanos wrote:socrates wrote:So what you are saying is that as he only has a history degree and you do not agree with what he says then he does not know what he is talking about. Excellent argument.
Booker is a clown. If you knew anything at all about climate science (or even science come to that) you'd recognise him as the borderline moron he is. I don't have the patience of the others here trying to explain to you the basics of the scientific method and why obvious idiocy is obvious idiocy, I just think that it's a bit sad you've got to this stage in life without being able to understand simple logic or present an argument that's not a strawman. Are you 14?
I'd never heard of him before. slightly ashamed to say that up to now I've been more or less ignoring the climate deniers and sceptics (and those in between). Probably quite arrogant of me. Still - I'm putting that right now I hope.
I have now got about 8 sheets of A4 written out - but i want to go through and check all the links i've put in and ensure that i've addressed every point made in Plimer's article.
In the meantime this may be of interest to anyone who intends to read Ian Plimer's book "Heaven and Earth" . It's basically a comprehensive look at all the errors, and false claims made in the book and it runs to 46 pages. :?
If you don;t want to read the whole thing - although I would recommend doing so, I'm going to on my journey home tonight - you can just read the Overview on page one.
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
The worst thing about this now is that I'm seriously considering buying Plimer's book now. He does seem to be the source for most of the non-science being touted around in the name of climate change denial.0 -
Porgy wrote:An aside - one of the comments attached to the Mail article:
"GO AWAY.
SHUT UP
WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY.
YOU ARE ALL LIARS AND CRIMINALS.
Man made global warming is NOT a fact, never has been and never will be - not, for that matter, is swine flu or global terrorism."
- Paul Kearns, HMP, England, 30/11/2009 08:51"
Whoa! I know Paul Kearns, from HMP..... He definatly is a shocked,concerned,outraged wail reader!!0 -
johnfinch wrote:[It makes you wonder - if he can keep churning out articles on subjects he clearly knows nothing about, how low are the standards of our print media? :shock:
It's the just the Mail and the Telegraph that seem to be swallowing his line without question. Although Plimer actually managed to get onto Radio 4 a little while back. :shock:0 -
Porgy wrote:johnfinch wrote:On the whole Monbiot vs. Plimer issue:
Plimer is a geologist, not a climatologist, and is a director of three mining companies, as well as being a member of a free-market think tank. If people are going to accuse "warmist" scientists of having vested interests, I hope they won't show double standards and see Plimer as some sort of sane voice of disinterested neutrality.
Monbiot on the other hand has a degree in zoology, so again not qualified as a climatologist.
you and i are not qualified as climatologists either unless there's something you're not telling me
- I'm an engineer not a climate scientist.
But does that mean we are excluded from the debate.
Monbiot uses evidence from scientific sources, while Plimer seems to rely on just saying - well i'm a scientist - i must be right.
I intend to engage with the issues - not argue about personalities and qualifications. A good journalist can use evidence to make their case in any field if the spend time and trouble to ensure they understand their subject...or at least make sure they speak to people who know their subject.
What worries me about the Mail articles tis that they seem to depend on two scientists who are generally out of favour with the scientific establishment but - enough with personalities eh? I'll get back on with dealing with the issues.
First I'm going to break the Mail article down into individuals claims and the evidence provided. After that I shall look at evidence offered elsewhere...and summarise the balance of evidence as i see it.
I may have taken too much on - but still - i'm sure it'll be entirely enjoyable - and i'll probably learn something.
Agreed, I'm an engineer, and using simple engineering approaches, you can see that the scientific consensus is consistent with the basic calculations that are available. Even if you ignore the Hadley crut3. For example, the CO2 levels that you can see start rising (literally exponentially) around the time of the industrial revolution, and that the CO2 levels are higher than at any time in the last 400,000 years or so:
And the data over the last few centuries: notice when the trend starts upwards (the vertical scale is a log plot so that one hundred divisions is a tenfold increase.
This data is completely independent of the East Anglia data.
You can then look at the temperatures in the UK.
We have records going back to 1659 here, and can again see a sudden rise that is again associated with the industrial revolution.
Because I am a semiconductor engineer, I used a tool called a cusum (which is a variant of the one explained here)
Basically it is a very good way of smoothing out noisy data, by taking each reading's difference from the long term average (or target value) and adding this (positive or negative) to the previous difference. A straight line means that the process is running at a constant average for the length of the straight line. An upward straight line means that it is running above target, whilst a downward straight line means it is running below target. An increase in slope means the process is changing.
This is what the last 350-years of data looks like
I started looking into this because I wanted to see how sophisticated an approach would be needed to detect any warming, and whether the simplistic approaches I use at work would help me make my mind up.
I was convinced that the scientific consensus makes sense.
Notice how the rate of warming is increasing (the gradient is getting steeper)0 -
OK I don't have time to do much with this article but:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-The-Earth-tricks-carbon-count-control.htmlHuman activity produces only three per cent of the world's carbon-dioxide emissions each year. One volcanic belch can emit as much as that in a day. Carbon dioxide has a short life in the atmosphere and is absorbed by natural processes that have been taking place for billions of years.
At the normal past rates of absorption, even if we burned all fossil fuels on Earth, the atmospheric carbon-dioxide content would not double.
This is a non-sequitur. No reputable scientists are saying anything about doubling the CO2 levels.
However I have done these sums before so can answer this.
Subject: Global Warming Again - but with an expertAccording to wiki: the total emissions are 27,245,758 thousand metric tonnes per year, a quick sum is that this is about 27-Gigatonnes of CO2 per year.
The atmosphere is about 5-Petatonnes so each year the emissions are about 27e9/5e15 tonnes, or about 5.6 ppm per year. In 2006 the CO2 levels were 381ppm according to the BBC.
The annual emissions are about 1% of the total level, which I'd regard as significant.
And the rise is of a similar order to the amount that we are putting into the atmosphere.
So CO2 levels are increasing by about the amount you would expect if you simplistically expected them to "top up" the atmospheric CO2.0 -
jimmypippa wrote:This data is completely independent of the East Anglia data.
But is it part of the global communist conspiracy? 0 -
johnfinch wrote:jimmypippa wrote:This data is completely independent of the East Anglia data.
But is it part of the global communist conspiracy?
Obviously:
They melted the ice caps too, just to prove a point...0 -
jimmypippa wrote:johnfinch wrote:jimmypippa wrote:This data is completely independent of the East Anglia data.
But is it part of the global communist conspiracy?
Obviously:
They melted the ice caps too, just to prove a point...
This article by George Monbiot makes the same point as you. I thought it was quite amusing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientistsOur co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.
Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.0 -
As Seanos has decided to ask my age and throw a lot dispute on my intellgence without knowing me all I can say is " how long have you been stupid" and do not call me an idiot you clown. Open your clothears to a rational argument by other people and get your arms from around that tree.0
-
socrates - I fell asleep reading Climate sceptic claims in bed last night.
What have you done to me? :?0 -
Yawn - nothing else to say. no point trying to argue with someone who sees only one side and will not open their minds to the possibility that they are wrong. have a nice life0
-
socrates wrote:Yawn - nothing else to say. no point trying to argue with someone who sees only one side and will not open their minds to the possibility that they are wrong. have a nice life
is that directed at me - i've spent two days now living and breathing the sceptic arguments - trying to understand where you lot are coming from - and now you don't want to argue? :?: :?
Socrtaes - unfortunately you seem not to have engaged with quite good arguments being put up by others - particularly what jimmypippa had to say. Did you read the criticisms of Ian Plimer that I posted? Did anyone read the criticisms of Plimer that I posted?
Am I wasting my time?
Anyway - I'm planning to start putting up the first of my counter arguments this evening - i'm sure others still want a reasonable and rational debate on the evidence.
I'll do each claim one by one - starting with the least complex i think.0 -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... antarctica
How the politicians inaccurate meddling in science comes back to bite them on the butts!! Quick start using cfcs again.....oh dear.0 -
Slapshot wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/01/ozone-antarctica
How the politicians inaccurate meddling in science comes back to bite them on the butts!! Quick start using cfcs again.....oh dear.
You have a funny way of looking at it. The removal of the ozone layer was causing serious health concerns - particularly in Australia. It needed to be repaired.
We have time to fix the atmosphere too - but only if we start now.
It does also negate one of the sceptic's arguments.
Have you never heard of the expression two wrongs don't make a right? :P0 -
presumably, the skeptics all ride compacts - while all the doom mongers ride on standard...??0
-
I'm wumming...but just a little.
What it means is that fundamentally our political masters grasp at anything they feasibly can and play knee jerk. Big hole in ozone layer ..stop using cfc's that'll solve that. Increasing Global temperature....That must be the CO2 levels that man has created all by itself, lets sort that next but hang on closing the ozone hole will increase temps and melt half of antartica...oh no where do we go next.
The whole Climate Change thing has been built of some half arsed science, grasping principles from the scientific world and applying them where neccesary whatever the outcomes. Go back to what i said earlier:There are more than 90,000 accurate atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements made by various scientists and documented over the past 180 years. Most of these measurements were indiscriminately thrown out by the architects of the Man-Made Global Warming Theory.
Strong scientific principle is built by analysing ALL data not just that which fits the result you want. You don't react to something you don't fully understand and by no imaginable means can we fully understand the full effects of global climate change and mans influence on it because we simply don't yet understand the full effects the forces of nature have on the planet. This is where IPCC falls flat
If Mr and Mrs Wong have a caucasian baby do they name it Sum Ting Wong??0 -
Global warming? Good, I'm 52 and will be long dead before I see any negative change. The rest of you tough, should have been born sooner, fend for yourselves I've had a good innings.
Global warming? How terrible, what about my poor children and grand children. What can I do about it? Absolutely nothing I do on a personal level will effect it. Oh I know I could go on a cycle forum and spout off about what I think I know? (certain gobsh1tes on here) and make the other plebeians see how clever I am, when really I've just read a little bit more on what is a dodgy subject than they have! But never mind I still have my central heating on for 5 months of the year, drive around in my CO2 polluting car, leave the lights on when I go for a crap, and actually do naff all myself to contribute to a reduction. In fact I talk so much BULL that no one really wants to read; I probably put more CH4 and CO2 into the atmosphere than a herd of cows!
Dave0 -
Firstly I'm surprised by how much you guys trust academics/scientists and their findings, but I made that point earlier. But my main issue with global warming is the reaction to it. It is over emotional (think Al Gore and indeed any reference to children/grand-children or polar bears), politicised, ill conceived (carbon trading is a nonsense) and rushed in my opinion. Although I am willing to go along with it, if it means we can send Bruce Willis into space with a big mirror or something - that would be cool.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0
-
skinson wrote:Oh I know I could go on a cycle forum and spout off about what I think I know? (certain gobsh1tes on here) and make the other plebeians see how clever I am, when really I've just read a little bit more on what is a dodgy subject than they have!
Nicensleazy asked a question, people are responding. If that makes you so incredibly angry, I suggest that you avoid forums in the future, just for the sake of your own health.
And as far as I can see, everyone who has replied saying that they think AGW is probably a reality has readily admitted to the limits of their own knowledge on the subject without even being asked.0
