Climate change - Hoax ?
Comments
-
some questions:
Can you explain how these models are wrong - I have some modelling experience - and I can't say I understand in which way climate models are being used differently than any other sort of model.Slapshot wrote:Why can they keep spinning the yarn about the execellence of these models when they are fundamentally wrong in the way they were created, data creates the model not the other way about?
I remember tweaking the one I created all ways - until I got it to replicate experimental results and then I used it to produce theoretical results which down the line proved to be pretty accurate. Obviously climate models are a lot more complicated than the one I created, but the principles of use should be similar.
have you examples?Why are there eminent climatologists who cannot gain research posts because of their heretical views?
what are the real effects of Global Warming?Why do IPCC never tell anyone the REAL end effects of Global Warming?
i think the importance of the Greenhouse Effect has been thoroughly acknowledged by science - and the dangers of runaway Greenhosue effect too.Why do they never talk about the fact that unless the Greenhouse Principle did exist the actual global temperature would be around -15°C?
even if true - it's got to be a concern hasn't it?Why do they never tell you that the net effect won't be catastrophic raising of sea levels but a fairly rapid drop into an ice age?
glad to see you're keeping an open mind. 8)Before you come back with all sorts of stuff to cut me down well remember we've had this crap forced down our necks for 20 years, I've heard most of it..... I'm still not convinced0 -
Porgy wrote:passout wrote:Porgy wrote:Slapshot wrote:Porgy wrote:Slapshot wrote:Contradictory stuff is almost impossible to find because governments, universities and the IPCC led Climate Change mob quash it, Heretical viewpoints and all that. When you stop asking what if? you become a sheep! What I have I can't publish, official secrets and all that stuff.
You're joking.
It's all over the place: The Mail, The Telegraph, The Spectator, on Radio 4...and many many more publications.
Ian Plimer's best selling book at the moment has not been quashed. It has been ridiculed for containing hundreds of errors, but it has not been quoshed.
There's a whole raft of climate sceptic books out there all outselling proper science books becasue people seem to want to pretend there's no problem - or avoid it for long enough and it might go away.
And there's the net.
I'm trying to read through it all at the moment. As no-one from the climate sceptic/ deniers club will put up an argument to support their belief I'm trying to work out what the climate sceptic argument(s) boils down to and then challenge those points one by one.
There's a raft of stuff and the reason's it's largely not quashed is because it full of errors and other bollox, Pilmer would get a great job as a stand up comedian if he plied this stuff as material.
Good contradictory analysis never gets out, because for the most part the people creating the contradictory stuff work for the universities and government agencies that are promulgating the IPCC line as policy, we're back to the money stuff again, they stop the problem at source. Why do you think there's such a fuss over the University of East Anglia.
Skepticism:
I understand the Greenhouse Principles, I also understand the Carbon and Water Cycles, I know how the ThermoHaline Currents work and their impacts on Global temperatures, I know what been said about deforrestation and about the converse effect of the huge increase in Algal Blooms. Fundamentally I also understand the effcet of dumping billions of tonnes of fresh water into our seas, what would happen to the thermohaline curents and the net effect on Global existence (thermo haline combines Heat and Salinity).
So
Why do they never discuss natural co2 variations? Have they stopped?
Why if AGW and the IPCC mob are correct do they refuse to revise the modelling at the centre of climate change theory?
Why can they keep spinning the yarn about the execellence of these models when they are fundamentally wrong in the way they were created, data creates the model not the other way about?
Why are there eminent climatologists who cannot gain research posts because of their heretical views?
Why is it more difficult to get a job in Hadley Centre than to break into Buckingham Palace?
Why do IPCC never tell anyone the REAL end effects of Global Warming?
Why do they never talk about the fact that unless the Greenhouse Principle did exist the actual global temperature would be around -15°C?
Why do they never tell you that the net effect won't be catastrophic raising of sea levels but a fairly rapid drop into an ice age?
Before you come back with all sorts of stuff to cut me down well remember we've had this crap forced down our necks for 20 years, I've heard most of it..... I'm still not convinced
Alright - I'm new to the sceptic arguments so i'm having to check them all up - you've thrown a few new things my way that i need to check up...and i'm pleased that this is starting to shape up to be a valid debate. 8)
but first off I've got a few questions of my own - why do you believe that money incentives to falsify science in academia are more significant than money incentives offered by multi national energy companies?
Do you seriously believe that there is a conspiracy that includes the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Specatator, among other right wing and corporate publications, to suppress good information and to publish the obviously fake, and somehow this conspiracy extends all the way to the internet? Can you explain how that works please?
Was the US government involved in this conspiracy - in which case why were whistleblowers in the US claiming that they had lost their funding because their work supported the man made climate change hypothesis?
also - I seem to remember seeing natural CO2 variations baing discussed in almost every article on climate change i've ever read - can you explain please what is the significance to this debate please as I don;t believe anyone is denying natural variations?
NOT conspiracy - bandwagon / a self -referential media circus would be more accurate......
So what stops the Daily Mail publishing THE evidence that will blow open the whole "circus" then? Why dosn't BP or Shell produce the evidence they have that obviously shows that climate change scientists are all wrong?
Where is this evidence - I assume you've seen it since you're so sure that man made climate change hypothisis is so completely wrong.
I'd like to see that evidence too please.
I'm not sure of the evidence one way or the other, that's my point & that's why I'm skeptical. I haven't denied global warming nor I have confirmed it - I'm an agnostic as far as this new religion is concerned. I'm no scientist but I certainly do no trust the media & social hype surrounding this topic.
You asked about religion & invention earlier. Our culture and history is largely a product of religion. Do you remember how the venerable Bede & his brothers protected learning & knowledge from the Vikings? The Reniassance was associated in changes in Theology (the neo-platonics etc) - God the clockmaker, Descartes etc. It all paved the way for art & science as we know it. The fore-fathers of science were religious and many prominent scientists still are. Astronomy, literature, architecture are clearly linked to religion in the past. But that's another debate really. I was actually referring to anthropology and that science and religion both are both ways to satisfy mans desire to explain his world. They are similar in that respect.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0 -
How about considering the implications of this paper;
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/~ ... /Oct20.pdf
How will Earth’s surface temperature change in future decades?
Judith L. Lean1 and David H. Rind21. Introduction
[2] Global surface temperature increased 0.7C during
the twentieth century and is projected to cause a further 1
to 4C increase during the twenty first century, primarily
as a result of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases
[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
2007]. Yet as Figure 1 shows, global surface temperatures
warmed little, if at all, from 2002 to 2008, even as greenhouse
gas concentrations have increased, causing some to
question the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
Now, these guys are 100% pro AGW SO.....they go on to seek to adjust the model to show that global warming is still occuring - just you can't see it for either the last 10 years or the next 10 years or so!
So you have flakey evidence based on selected tree rings giving historic temperature data. Merge this with ajusted actual data that is higher than the historic tree ring data to give a hockey stick curve. Ignore the fact of a Middle Age Heat wave as that is incovenient. Discount the effect of urban islands increasing local temperatures often where readings are taken - and use falsified data to support your ideology.
Finally if the actual evidence over the past 10 years doesn't fit then ---- so what. We've got a great band wagon going here and all the politicians love us as it can scare the $hit out of everyone and the population is easier to control.
PS, I used to believe the AGW stuff until I really looked into the evidence they are using.
Is there any evidence that there is no AGW. Difficult to prove a negative, but the paper I started off with is a good start.0 -
passout wrote:[I'm not sure of the evidence one way or the other, that's my point & that's why I'm skeptical. I haven't denied global warming nor I have confirmed it - I'm an agnostic as far as this new religion is concerned. I'm no scientist but I certainly do no trust the media & social hype surrounding this topic.
You asked about religion & invention earlier. Our culture and history is largely a product of religion. Do you remember how the venerable Bede & his brothers protected learning & knowledge from the Vikings? The Reniassance was associated in changes in Theology (the neo-platonics etc) - God the clockmaker, Descartes etc. It all paved the way for art & science as we know it. The fore-fathers of science were religious and many prominent scientists still are. Astronomy, literature, architecture are clearly linked to religion in the past. But that's another debate really. I was actually referring to anthropology and that science and religion both are both ways to satisfy mans desire to explain his world. They are similar in that respect.
While I know a bit about the history of science, religion and philosophy I actually no nothing about anthropology - so any fine point you're making here is probably lost on me.
However, I point to the concrete benefit of science to show just how powerful it is. It is not a beliefe system in the same order as anything that we had before becasue it enables us to manipulate, if not actually know anything (in a philosophical sense), about the world around us.
That's why I take science more seriously than you appear to.0 -
Like Passout, I too am uninformed about how much climate change is due to man and how much is due to nature.
Can anyone please recommend good introductory books to the issues presented from both sides, please?
Preferably ones that haven't been completely discredited. 8)0 -
stigofthedump wrote:A much more interesting debate is on how to wean ourselves off oil.
We should be living where we work to cut down transport miles.
Also is it better to buy a new car with low emmisions which has used a great deal of energy to make, or continue to use an old car that produces slightly more carbon?
Clarkson does get one thing right, however, Purely electric cars are not the future, hygrogen fuel cells are, IMO.
I do live at work, about 6 paces from my office!
But, I work on a Drilling Rig.
So, weaning ourselves of oil, puts me out of a job. :shock: But, I doubt it would happen in my working lifetime...
I watched Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
I'm not a scientist, nor a 'greenie', but it had quite an effect on me. I know I earn my money in the oilfields, but I do do whatever I can, in my personal life, to avoid adding to this problem.
Start with a budget, finish with a mortgage!0 -
skinson wrote:
Hmm! Guilty conscience mate? I never mentioned anyone by name. And as far as being angry, you really couldn't be further from the truth. I sleep very easily in my bed, and so do my children and grandchildren! You on the other hand I suspect, spend an awful lot of time trying to find futile pieces of information to piece together an argument for MMGW. :roll: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.
Dave
No, no guilty conscience at all, I just don't see the need to call other people gobsh1tes.
And, er, what evidence have I posted on here to support the MMGW theory? I believe the answer is a grand total of zero links, quotes or whatever.
As I have said elsewhere, I don't know how much CC is down to man and how much is down to nature. I just don't believe it's conspiracy theory, that's all.0 -
If you don’t understand the science, and I expect basically no one on here does really, why not believe in the theory of manmade climate change?
Why prefer (which is all it is, a preference) to not believe it?Mañana0 -
teagar wrote:Surely the whole debate on cimate change hinges on risk.
Risk is the likelihood of something happenning multiplied by the severity of the risk.
So the likelihood is disupted, but the most severe outcome is turning earth into a planet unhospitible for humans.
Surely the ins and outs of climate change are a bit irrelevant. If it is happening and nothing is done, than we're all farked.
See tackling global warming as an insurance policy. We're doing it just in case it is actually leading to a serious gigantic humanitarian problem.
If deniers are wrong, it's the end of the planet as we know it, if climate believers are wrong, we're inconvenienced.
Have you read Ullrich Beck's The Risk Society? Very interesting work.0 -
pb21 wrote:If you don’t understand the science, and I expect basically no one on here does really, why not believe in the theory of manmade climate change?
Why prefer (which is all it is, a preference) to not believe it?
Meteorologist.....I do understand, thats WHY I'm skeptical... :roll:
I'll answer later, just got really busy!!0 -
pb21 wrote:If you don’t understand the science, and I expect basically no one on here does really, why not believe in the theory of manmade climate change?
Why prefer (which is all it is, a preference) to not believe it?
Well that makes it a matter of faith (like religion) rather than one of science / provable laws. But you are right - it could go either way, in that scenario. I guess that's where Teagar's / John Finch's observation on risk come into it. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't question it (i.e. be skeptical) to the best of our ability of course, I'm sure you agree.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0 -
I am currently engaged in questioning it.
I'm looking at the whole matter of alledged fraudelent data at the moment - and what the implication may be. I shall report back duly. :P
Decided to shelf the matter of pulling to pieces the Daily Mail article for the moment unless anyone particularly objects - as I feel that getting to the root of the issue is probably a priority...and nobody seems to be particulalry keen to support either Plimer or the Daily Mail at the moment. I feel it is too easy a target - and therefore of little benefit to anyone.
I now have enough reading material to take me into the middle of next week.
I may come out of all this able to write a paper.
or maybe I'll just end up confused.
Mind = open 8)0 -
-
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch01.pdf
I'm going to read through this to try to give myself a better grounding before I argue any more on the science.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-figures.html
and this - for balance
http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf
THE FRAUD ALLEGATION AGAINST SOME CLIMATIC. RESEARCH OF WEI-CHYUNG WANG. Douglas J. Keenan.
There's a lot of it - so I may be back this time next week. :?
mind = open 8)0 -
Right, lots of meat in here, but (like me) a lot of fat to wade through to get there!
Climate changes, always has and always will.
That bit I believe that we all can accept. Our question is, to what extent are we altering it and on what scale?
Let's start with jolly old Blighty! One poster has put a chart up, showing temperatures soaring away. I didn't recognise it from the well-know CET data set. (Central England Temperatures)
[img][/img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Yearly.png
Lots of variation there and what slope to put on it is very dependant on your starting point. Start at 1745 & we're having an OMFG! moment.
This is something to beware of when looking at recorded data. There does seem to be a "step change" around 1980.
Next, Uppsala, also a long record.
Rekonstruerad årsmedeltemperatur, Uppsala 1722 - 2005
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:PkKNHnxbeVsJ:www.smhi.se/sgn0102/n0205/upps_www.pdf+%22Rekonstruerad+%C3%A5rsmedeltemperatur,+Uppsala+1722+-+2005%22&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiveYa7JaRNK0LsDDbJhqY-8tSJfXa3usTSoz_ikL1kniIL-hfXp5rL-0LiIReuEFmIwwRCLU2LUTqxPe1hvXZBxPa1Z3mbO66hz4NlJpJ_U-YptqkqLgvBLScMaGuwETr0zfQl&sig=AHIEtbSwCinthQWvYp76WI89T4wB-N_-uA
Now, the big question is, . is the increase in temperature we're seeing these dyas a big divergence from the past?
We've got thermometer records going back c 350 years, a mere dot on the timesheet, what about millenia past?
This is where various "proxies" come into it, the accuracy of these is suspect to many.
Read more here, http://www.climateaudit.org/ the pages on hockey-stick studies and proxy data are the ones to read.
The selection metods of proxies are dubious, the various authors using tree rings select tree ring data, throw out any which appears not to give the desired "signal", then process and analyse the rest. They don't appear to take into account effects of human activities on lake bed sediments and even flip the data to make sediment "say" hotter, when the original author has said that thicker sediments mean cooler periods.
Then the IPCC gets in on the act, see http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html for the shenanigans that they get up to, in getting the "right" paper.
Many websites, eg "Real Climate" run on about peer-review, the "Climategate" e-mails throw light on that, with attempts to get the "right" reviewers for papers, eithetr to give your own an easy ride or to hope that they'll give one with an opposing view a hard time.
There are other aspects outside of GHGs to consider, Professor Pielke's website looks at land use. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/. Other scientists you may liketo read are his son http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/, Dr Roy Spencer http://www.drroyspencer.com/ and this blog http://chiefio.wordpress.com/, where the author looks at great length ointo the manipulation behind the data used by both the CRU and GISS when preparing their various temperature anomaly charts. He documents the removal of weather stations from cooler and rural (often the same, due to Urban Heat Island effect) to warmer areas, so remove data from a station in a high. mountainous area and use data from a nice big city by the sea!
Sorry Porgy, but this lot will take months to read!
Oh I'll add onre more, very good at teasing out the various natural variations http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/
For those who are convinced "warmists". then read the rude rants that the likes of "Tamino" (name Grant Foster-he appearsin the e-mails!) and Joe Romm http://tamino.wordpress.com/ http://climateprogress.org/. Both are rude beyond belief and also very, very tightly censor their blogs, so any difficult contributions are either chopped or severly ediited.Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
well this does seem to be the crux of the matter now...how reliable is the original data and does the manipulations performed on them make them suspect or fit for purpose.
Makes you wonder why high profile sceptics are messing about with dubious claims such as volcanoes produce more CO2 than people or that water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas...and Plimer's dubious claims about CO2 and temperature variations where there's absolutely no evidence...either way...and worse - a lot of Plimer's claims are just plain irrelevent - such as pointing out naturally caused climat echange in the past - whcih has no bearing on the present.
So hopefully we've got past Plimer and that other guy who writes for the Telegraph.
I will read through what you've posted.
I need to satisfy myself that I've done this....I can hardly go round telling people how to prepare for climate change if I haven't gone through the basics can I?
Have to say though - on balance - with arctic ice retreating, unusual animal migrations and species shift within Europe gradually northward, glaciers meliting, sea levels rising, deserts expanding, a run of unusually hot summers in the past decade or two, spring creeping gradually earlier and earlier in the year. I find it almost impossible to believe that figures showing recent temperature increases are that far out.
Anyway - I'm going to see if I can find out what evidence there is - how much - how wide the sources of those data are - which ones are reliable - and how much different types of sources agree with the broad theory.0 -
Porgy wrote:Have to say though - on balance - with arctic ice retreating, unusual animal migrations and species shift within Europe gradually northward, glaciers meliting, sea levels rising, deserts expanding, a run of unusually hot summers in the past decade or two, spring creeping gradually earlier and earlier in the year. I find it almost impossible to believe that figures showing recent temperature increases are that far out.
.
Didn't you read what I posted? Even the ACW evangelists accept that over the last 10 years the average temperate has not increased (and may have fallen) and they expect the same pattern over the next 10 years (ie no increase). So unusually hot summers are just that, not due to an overall increase in global temperature and the other items you mention can not be attributed to an increase in global temperature... as there hasen't been one.
Further evidence from NASA sats shows average decrease over the past 2 years.0 -
cjw wrote:How about considering the implications of this paper;
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/~ ... /Oct20.pdf
How will Earth’s surface temperature change in future decades?
Judith L. Lean1 and David H. Rind21. Introduction
[2] Global surface temperature increased 0.7C during
the twentieth century and is projected to cause a further 1
to 4C increase during the twenty first century, primarily
as a result of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases
[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
2007]. Yet as Figure 1 shows, global surface temperatures
warmed little, if at all, from 2002 to 2008, even as greenhouse
gas concentrations have increased, causing some to
question the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
Now, these guys are 100% pro AGW SO.....they go on to seek to adjust the model to show that global warming is still occuring - just you can't see it for either the last 10 years or the next 10 years or so!
/quote]0 -
cjw wrote:Porgy wrote:Have to say though - on balance - with arctic ice retreating, unusual animal migrations and species shift within Europe gradually northward, glaciers meliting, sea levels rising, deserts expanding, a run of unusually hot summers in the past decade or two, spring creeping gradually earlier and earlier in the year. I find it almost impossible to believe that figures showing recent temperature increases are that far out.
.
Didn't you read what I posted? Even the ACW evangelists accept that over the last 10 years the average temperate has not increased (and may have fallen) and they expect the same pattern over the next 10 years (ie no increase). So unusually hot summers are just that, not due to an overall increase in global temperature and the other items you mention can not be attributed to an increase in global temperature... as there hasen't been one.
Further evidence from NASA sats shows average decrease over the past 2 years.
I read that - but at this point I do not necessarily accept it.
Just because I'm being open minded doesn't mean I'm swallowing everything that the sceptics are saying hook line and sinker.
I'll examine the evidence.
BTW what is an ACW evangelist ? give me an example.0 -
Slapshot wrote:pb21 wrote:If you don’t understand the science, and I expect basically no one on here does really, why not believe in the theory of manmade climate change?
Why prefer (which is all it is, a preference) to not believe it?
Meteorologist.....I do understand, thats WHY I'm skeptical... :roll:
I'll answer later, just got really busy!!
I have posted my back of the envelope calculations, which, although simplistic agree pretty well with what most meterologists are saying.
What do you disagree with?
1) CO2 levels rising at about the rate that you'd expect if mankind was topping up wat was already there?
2) The world is warming?
3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
4) That climate change is going to cause problems because cities will be in the wrong place if climate belts move?
5) That mankind's activities can have an effect on the climate?
And why?Porgy wrote:I am currently engaged in questioning it.
I'm looking at the whole matter of alledged fraudelent data at the moment - and what the implication may be. I shall report back duly. :P
Decided to shelf the matter of pulling to pieces the Daily Mail article for the moment unless anyone particularly objects - as I feel that getting to the root of the issue is probably a priority...and nobody seems to be particulalry keen to support either Plimer or the Daily Mail at the moment. I feel it is too easy a target - and therefore of little benefit to anyone.
I now have enough reading material to take me into the middle of next week.
I may come out of all this able to write a paper.
or maybe I'll just end up confused.
Mind = open 8)
The bit in red, I know that you are remembering about the physical evidence from ice caps...
Remembering that as this paperpoints out, in 2003, glaciers in the the Swiss alps had retreated further than at any time in the previous 5000 years.0 -
Porgy wrote:cjw wrote:Porgy wrote:Have to say though - on balance - with arctic ice retreating, unusual animal migrations and species shift within Europe gradually northward, glaciers meliting, sea levels rising, deserts expanding, a run of unusually hot summers in the past decade or two, spring creeping gradually earlier and earlier in the year. I find it almost impossible to believe that figures showing recent temperature increases are that far out.
.
Didn't you read what I posted? Even the ACW evangelists accept that over the last 10 years the average temperate has not increased (and may have fallen) and they expect the same pattern over the next 10 years (ie no increase). So unusually hot summers are just that, not due to an overall increase in global temperature and the other items you mention can not be attributed to an increase in global temperature... as there hasen't been one.
Further evidence from NASA sats shows average decrease over the past 2 years.
I read that - but at this point I do not necessarily accept it.
Just because I'm being open minded doesn't mean I'm swallowing everything that the sceptics are saying hook line and sinker.
I'll examine the evidence.
BTW what is an ACW evangelist ? give me an example.
The paper is written by two of the leading pro-ACW scientists - it is NOT an anti global warming paper, but a pro one explaining how the lack of warming over the past 10 years can still support an overall ACW theory.
Examples of ACW evangelists... basically what the leaked emails are about, they went well beyond scientific research and peer review to campaigning and excluding anyone with differing views.0 -
jimmypippa wrote:Slapshot wrote:pb21 wrote:If you don’t understand the science, and I expect basically no one on here does really, why not believe in the theory of manmade climate change?
Why prefer (which is all it is, a preference) to not believe it?
Meteorologist.....I do understand, thats WHY I'm skeptical... :roll:
I'll answer later, just got really busy!!
I have posted my back of the envelope calculations, which, although simplistic agree pretty well with what most meterologists are saying.
What do you disagree with?
1) CO2 levels rising at about the rate that you'd expect if mankind was topping up wat was already there?
2) The world is warming?
3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
4) That climate change is going to cause problems because cities will be in the wrong place if climate belts move?
5) That mankind's activities can have an effect on the climate?
And why?Porgy wrote:I am currently engaged in questioning it.
I'm looking at the whole matter of alledged fraudelent data at the moment - and what the implication may be. I shall report back duly. :P
Decided to shelf the matter of pulling to pieces the Daily Mail article for the moment unless anyone particularly objects - as I feel that getting to the root of the issue is probably a priority...and nobody seems to be particulalry keen to support either Plimer or the Daily Mail at the moment. I feel it is too easy a target - and therefore of little benefit to anyone.
I now have enough reading material to take me into the middle of next week.
I may come out of all this able to write a paper.
or maybe I'll just end up confused.
Mind = open 8)
The bit in red, I know that you are remembering about the physical evidence from ice caps...
Remembering that as this paperpoints out, in 2003, glaciers in the the Swiss alps had retreated further than at any time in the previous 5000 years.
My own (prejudicial) view here is that the physical evidence alone will prove overwhelmingly that climate change is occuring and temperatures are increasing. Certainly I believe that your own rough calculations show that the theory is broadly correct.
But I'm want to pull together what evidence there is - and in an open minded manner so that we pull the sceptics along into the debate with us. I doubt if I can really put in the time required till the weekend though.
But after two days of crying into the wilderness for some evidence - I've been so inundated with it I have to back off a bit and absorb what I've been given to read.
Seems I'm being attacked by both sides now - so I guess my "balanced" approach is working. :?0 -
cjw wrote:Porgy wrote:cjw wrote:Porgy wrote:Have to say though - on balance - with arctic ice retreating, unusual animal migrations and species shift within Europe gradually northward, glaciers meliting, sea levels rising, deserts expanding, a run of unusually hot summers in the past decade or two, spring creeping gradually earlier and earlier in the year. I find it almost impossible to believe that figures showing recent temperature increases are that far out.
.
Didn't you read what I posted? Even the ACW evangelists accept that over the last 10 years the average temperate has not increased (and may have fallen) and they expect the same pattern over the next 10 years (ie no increase). So unusually hot summers are just that, not due to an overall increase in global temperature and the other items you mention can not be attributed to an increase in global temperature... as there hasen't been one.
Further evidence from NASA sats shows average decrease over the past 2 years.
I read that - but at this point I do not necessarily accept it.
Just because I'm being open minded doesn't mean I'm swallowing everything that the sceptics are saying hook line and sinker.
I'll examine the evidence.
BTW what is an ACW evangelist ? give me an example.
The paper is written by two of the leading pro-ACW scientists - it is NOT an anti global warming paper, but a pro one explaining how the lack of warming over the past 10 years can still support an overall ACW theory.
Examples of ACW evangelists... basically what the leaked emails are about, they went well beyond scientific research and peer review to campaigning and excluding anyone with differing views.
well then the evangalists, as you refer to them, do not accept that temperatures have stopped rising. Certainly I've noticed articles in the New Scientist recently talking about a new global cooling which is becoming apparent, but we'd got to a very high point already - and cooling is relative to that. Temperatures are still very high even with some slight cooling.
And if you have two effects superimposed on each other - 1.a manmade warming effect and 2. a natural cooling effect then 2 may well be cancelling out 1. but it doesn't mean that 1. isn't still occuring.
Again. Just becasue you posted it and I've skimmed through it (all I had time for - I'll look at it properly later) doesn't mean I accept it - or rather your interpretation of it and it's significance. thanks for bringing it to my attention though. 8)0 -
When looking at glacier retreats, you do have to consider any local enviromental changes.
The periodic jumping up & down about the retreat of glaciers on Mt Kilamanjaro, omits to mention that the temperature never rises above freezing, but that there's been extensive deforestation on its slopes, leading to a reduction in snowfall.
This thread on Climate Audit notes the discovery of archeological finds, revealed by retreating glaciers http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=434
"Glacier retreat in the hot 2003 summer exposed remains from several distinct periods: from ~ 2800-2500 BC; from 2000-1750 BC; ~150 BC-250 AD; and the MWP up to the 14th/15th Century"
More recently http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7580294.stm
"The Roman coins found on the Schnidejoch are being seen as proof that the Romans used this route to cross the Alps from Italy to their territories in northern Europe. Interestingly, one of the Earth's chillier periods coincides with the decline of the Roman empire. "]
This is an important point, a cold spell coincided with the end of the Roman Empire, similar data suggest that the demise of the Minoan Empire coincided with a cold period
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/gr ... n_01.shtml
Humans thrive in warm conditions, it's cold that kills us, mainly from starvation as crops fail due to frost andreduced growing seasons.Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
OK I thought it was pretty common knowledge and one that has been causing problems with the climate models.. They do not overly publisise it (as it doesn't help with the ACW case).
http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/nina/
No rise in world temperatures for the past decade, UN’s top weather man admits in BBC news revelation that also concedes some scientists doubt climate change theory.
The story quotes no less an authority than the secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organisation, Michel Jarraud, hardly someone the True Believers could label a “denier,” that appalling term they use to try to shut down anyone who questions even the most extreme claims about climate change.
“El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it,” the BBC story added. Pardon?
It contined: “Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree. This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world. A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and the earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.”
AND...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7329799.stm
Adam Scaife, lead scientist for modelling climate variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.
Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended
This was in 2008, since then temeratures have fallen according to NASA.0 -
well this is from the NASA webste - a table of the top ten warmest years since 1880
Top 10 Warmest Years and Temperature Anomalies (Base Period = 1951-80) in 1880-2008
edit that's not come out very well - so i'm deleting it - here's a link
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graph ... armest.doc
So while there's been little rising overall - we are certainly right at the top of a peak right now - what are the chances of us sliding down again - or are we flat-lining for a couple of decades then rising again?
Do you know?
the lean and rind paper you linked before seems to conclude that temperature rises will continue albeit at a slower rate, but this is due to reduced solar activity - which at best is temprorary and a large El Nino event will send temperatures soaring again.
I've also read quite a plausible argument that most of the temperature increases currently occuring is being absorbed by the ice caps at each pole...which implies that once we've melted all the ice there'll be a sort of runaway heating effect - no longer damped by the huge ice caps.
I'll try to find this and link it here.0 -
Porgy wrote:So while there's been little rising overall - we are certainly right at the top of a peak right now - what are the chances of us sliding down again - or are we flat-lining for a couple of decades then rising again?
Do you know?
At last - well done!
Now the paper I linked to argues that we are flatlining for next 10 years and then we carry on rising again.
However, the difficulty I have is simple. Over the past 10 years humans have been pumping out more CO2 than ever before - much much more, so one would expect temperature to rise if the climate change models were correct. However empirical data doesn't support this as the temperatures have not increased, and as I said over past 2 years are falling.0 -
The subject of this evening's 'Moral Maze' programme on BBc R4 is global warming/climate change. It''l be interesting what Melanie Philips has to say, or rather how she presents her predictable position.
It starts in about 5 minutes but it'll be available on iPlayer for a week I expect.
Edit: I misunderstood the trail. The discussion was about morality in science research generally. Still interesting but not directly relevant to this particular discussion. Oh and Ms Philips wasn't one of the panel
GeoffOld cyclists never die; they just fit smaller chainrings ... and pedal faster0 -
cjw wrote:Porgy wrote:So while there's been little rising overall - we are certainly right at the top of a peak right now - what are the chances of us sliding down again - or are we flat-lining for a couple of decades then rising again?
Do you know?
At last - well done!
.
Please less of the patronising - I'm trying to do my job while I'm sitting here posting on this thread.0
