Climate Change, real or codswallop?

DonDaddyD

Porgy wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

[ If you have no friends

:shock:

see what i mean? what have I said to deserve this?

You are too sensitive to be online to be honest.

I said if, If, IF

If you have no friends? I'm not saying 'You have no friends'. I am merely making a suggestion in the event that you don't have any friends. Because frankly I don't know whether you do or you don't.

It's hardly insulting or personal.

what like being autistic? - fcking genius!!

Well if you are autistic and find it hard to detach from that which you focus on don't you think it better to deal with that personally and/or take the leap and turn the PC off.

In the online World of dissociative responsibility It really isn't any of our problems except your own. If you want to leave the site, turn the PC off. If you cannot, PM a moderator and have them ban you and block your IP address.

Alternatively, you could just call it a day and come back after Christmas.

Porgy

I'm all calmed down now thankyou...didn't know you were a therapist.

Porgy

Hey where's Greg66 now? He's won. He broke me down. I flipped. That proves climate change is all a big con doesn;t it?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Porgy wrote:

Anyway, let's cut to the chase, Porgy, me old mucker (BTW, if you consider this a personal intrusion, say so, and just ignore it). Your blog in your sig says, in your words, you are an "Eco Warrior* turned Environmental advisor".

So be honest. Were you to tell clients that (a) there is no GW, or there is G Cooling, and (b) man's activities are not materially affecting the climate, how many of your clients would continue to engage your services?

That's client - just the one.

at the moment anyway - and i do not advise on whether climate change is happening or not...this company has a policy - it accepts that science has proved that man made climat change is occuring - and did so before i joined. I advice on how to achieve cuts in carbon emmissions.

Been off wrapping presents.

So it's not an issue between you and the client. Fair enough.

Back to wrapping. I hate wrapping.

Porgy

DonDaddyD wrote:

I get frustrated because (and this is a small example). A new car comes out, its the all singing all dancing save the bunny rabbits car. A few years later and I'm finding out that it has a larger carbon footprint than cars made several years ago.

So do we all - my advice - take corporate lies with a pinch of salt. I do.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Anyway, let's cut to the chase, Porgy, me old mucker (BTW, if you consider this a personal intrusion, say so, and just ignore it). Your blog in your sig says, in your words, you are an "Eco Warrior* turned Environmental advisor".

So be honest. Were you to tell clients that (a) there is no GW, or there is G Cooling, and (b) man's activities are not materially affecting the climate, how many of your clients would continue to engage your services?

That's client - just the one.

at the moment anyway - and i do not advise on whether climate change is happening or not...this company has a policy - it accepts that science has proved that man made climat change is occuring - and did so before i joined. I advice on how to achieve cuts in carbon emmissions.

Been off wrapping presents.

So it's not an issue between you and the client. Fair enough.

Back to wrapping. I hate wrapping.

Excessive packaging. Contributes to global warming y'know.

You b@stard.

:P

Porgy

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Anyway, let's cut to the chase, Porgy, me old mucker (BTW, if you consider this a personal intrusion, say so, and just ignore it). Your blog in your sig says, in your words, you are an "Eco Warrior* turned Environmental advisor".

So be honest. Were you to tell clients that (a) there is no GW, or there is G Cooling, and (b) man's activities are not materially affecting the climate, how many of your clients would continue to engage your services?

That's client - just the one.

at the moment anyway - and i do not advise on whether climate change is happening or not...this company has a policy - it accepts that science has proved that man made climat change is occuring - and did so before i joined. I advice on how to achieve cuts in carbon emmissions.

Been off wrapping presents.

So it's not an issue between you and the client. Fair enough.

Back to wrapping. I hate wrapping.

Excessive packaging. Contributes to global warming y'know.

You b@stard.

:P

no it doesn't - it's completely irrelevent.

lost_in_thought

Porgy wrote:

no it doesn't - it's completely irrelevent.

That's because it's a joke, y'know, a bit of light-hearted humour? :roll:

Porgy

lost_in_thought wrote:

Porgy wrote:

no it doesn't - it's completely irrelevent.

That's because it's a joke, y'know, a bit of light-hearted humour? :roll:

i've lost my sense of humour over this today. sorry.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Porgy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Porgy wrote:

no it doesn't - it's completely irrelevent.

That's because it's a joke, y'know, a bit of light-hearted humour? :roll:

i've lost my sense of humour over this today. sorry.

Apology accepted.

Never mind. Tomorrows another day.

Porgy

Greg66 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Porgy wrote:

no it doesn't - it's completely irrelevent.

That's because it's a joke, y'know, a bit of light-hearted humour? :roll:

i've lost my sense of humour over this today. sorry.

Apology accepted.

Never mind. Tomorrows another day.

i wasn't saying sorry to you.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Porgy wrote:

my advice - take corporate lies with a pinch of salt. I do.

Sage advice.

But this one?

Porgy wrote:

this company has a policy - it accepts that science has proved that man made climate change is occuring

That's what it says ...

Porgy

greg66 wrote:

and a link to a NASA table which stated on its face that it was not to be taken too seriously. I didn't find much else in the way of evidence that you posted links to, but I have to admit, I skimmed the thread pretty superficially.

This is where you lack of scientific background shows. The paragraph actually says

NASA wrote:

These rankings should not be taken too seriously because the differences between these years are much smaller than the measurement uncertainties (~ 0.1◦C).

So it's not the report - nor the figures that are in question, just the rankings in column 1. Well those were not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

If you do wish to argue on the evidence, please try to understand what you're reading first. I will assume for now that you were not attempting to deliberately misrepresent that piece of evidence.

Porgy

greg66 wrote:

which I confess to not having read in detail,

gregg66 wrote:

I skimmed the thread pretty superficially.

You misrepresented the evidence i presented on the other thread - there was a fair amount more than you admitted, plus plenty from others arguing alongside me.

I suggest you go back and read the evidence in more detail - again - you seem to be quite happy to wade into a debate without reading the opposing argument - considering this is quite a complex scientific issue - it seems unlikely to me that anything can be gained from this.


Maybe we should go back to calling each other rude names?

gregg66 wrote:

*Say Hi to Dave Angel for me!

oh hum
:roll:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12665232&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=160

Porgy

Greg66 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

my advice - take corporate lies with a pinch of salt. I do.

Sage advice.

But this one?

Porgy wrote:

this company has a policy - it accepts that science has proved that man made climate change is occuring

That's what it says ...

that makes no sense whatsoever. you're getting desperate. what about the evidence...stop with the character assassination why don't you?

Aguila

Porgy,

If I were you I'd not waste any more of your time on Greg. He is not going to enter into a sensible discussion, however hard you try. It seems to me that he's one of these people who simply love the sound of their own voice and are convinced they are right about everything. Hence the career choice and behaviour on this thread.

cjcp

Whatever your view on this subject, "The Meaning of the 21st Century" by James Martin is a very interesting read.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Porgy wrote:

This is where you lack of scientific background shows.

Porgy wrote:

So it's not the report - nor the figures that are in question, just the rankings in column 1. Well those were not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that a lawyer can't have a scientific background.

You're right that I mis-stated the preface to the NASA table. That's as far as you get.

The point you were trying to make in the hoax thread was that the last ten years have shown increasing temperatures:

Porgy wrote:

I find it almost impossible to believe that figures showing recent temperature increases are that far out.

citing the NASA table.

However, the point made against you was that whilst in the last ten years CO2 emissions have risen considerably, there is no overall warming trend in those ten years, and if anything, there is a recent cooling trend.

To which you said it's very hot right now though:

Porgy wrote:

we are certainly right at the top of a peak right now

Then cjw put this point:

cjw wrote:

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.

So the evidence didn't support a causal link.

Then you said (in summary) temps are only falling now because of the Sun, and although the Sun was driving temperature up to 40 years ago, it isn't any more (we are). So the Sun was driving temperature, and now it isn't, man is, except that it is now because solar activity is down and that explains the recent temperature decrease. But man made efforts would have driven temperature up. Except for the Sun.

Or something.

Well, that obviously doesn't work. And it's not based on evidence, as far as I can tell, either.

As for this:

Porgy wrote:

You misrepresented the evidence i presented on the other thread - there was a fair amount more than you admitted

No, I don't think I did, and I don't think there was. You pushed a bad point, and were called on it.

Of course, if I've misunderstood what you were saying, I'd be happy to have you explain it in words a simple, non-scientific fellow like me can follow.


Interesting that in that thread, and this one, you run pretty quickly to the "they're all out to get me and they're personally abusing me" refuge, when in fact, all anyone is doing is challenging your view.

Anyhoo. In the spirit of that dreadful Macca song, I'm going to call a unilateral truce until after Boxing Day. I plan to play figurative footy in No Man's Land in the meantime. If you want to continue fighting, knock yerself out.

In the meantime, Merry Christmas.

Rockbuddy

I don’t usually join in the debates much but this one has struck a cord with me.

I think AT coined it quite early on GW/CC seems to have taken the form of a religion with believers and non-believers.

What's really annoying is the GW/CC “science” has used CO2 as a scape goat. Let alone the fact that water vapour is far more prevalent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Don’t get me wrong I am not pro-polluting, waste or unnecessary use of resources but when I constantly hear about people’s carbon foot-print and CO2 as a pollutant it annoys me.

Carbon is the main building block of life (we are all carbon based life forms), in other words we could never be ‘carbon neutral’ are we’re made of the stuff. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it’s also an essential element of life, it’s plant food, without it there would be no life on the planet. Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, while were at it why don’t we get rid of that should be able to cool the earth a bit and get a quick tan at the same time.

If you haven’t guessed from the above I don’t believe in man-made global warming at least not in respects to CO2, there’s no correlation between temperature and CO2.

It is quite possible that our very presence on the plant could be having an effect (in the 20th Century the global population grew 4 fold and in the last 40 years the population doubled from 3 to 6 billion – it’s well on the way to 7 billion in the first decade of this century).

Porgy

Aguila wrote:

Porgy,

If I were you I'd not waste any more of your time on Greg. He is not going to enter into a sensible discussion, however hard you try. It seems to me that he's one of these people who simply love the sound of their own voice and are convinced they are right about everything. Hence the career choice and behaviour on this thread.

amen to that. 8)

Merry Xmas

Jay dubbleU

Rockbuddy wrote:

I don’t usually join in the debates much but this one has struck a cord with me.

I think AT coined it quite early on GW/CC seems to have taken the form of a religion with believers and non-believers.

What's really annoying is the GW/CC “science” has used CO2 as a scape goat. Let alone the fact that water vapour is far more prevalent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Don’t get me wrong I am not pro-polluting, waste or unnecessary use of resources but when I constantly hear about people’s carbon foot-print and CO2 as a pollutant it annoys me.

Carbon is the main building block of life (we are all carbon based life forms), in other words we could never be ‘carbon neutral’ are we’re made of the stuff. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it’s also an essential element of life, it’s plant food, without it there would be no life on the planet. Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, while were at it why don’t we get rid of that should be able to cool the earth a bit and get a quick tan at the same time.

If you haven’t guessed from the above I don’t believe in man-made global warming at least not in respects to CO2, there’s no correlation between temperature and CO2.

It is quite possible that our very presence on the plant could be having an effect (in the 20th Century the global population grew 4 fold and in the last 40 years the population doubled from 3 to 6 billion – it’s well on the way to 7 billion in the first decade of this century).

If you believe this I suggest you take a look at CO2 levels and temperature correlation during the Cretaceous - high levels of volcanic activity from the Deccan traps and Pacific seamounts produced very high levels of CO2 much of which was absorbed by the oceans indirectly producing chalk deposites and raising the temperature to the point where forests which produced coal flourished at the poles.
CO2 traps the sun's heat in the lower atmosphere - increased CO2 traps higher levels of heat

Porgy

However, the point made against you was that whilst in the last ten years CO2 emissions have risen considerably, there is no overall warming trend in those ten years, and if anything, there is a recent cooling trend.

No - I accepted that there has been a reduced level of warming in the last ten - have always accepted it - it has also been quite widely reported.

My point was that we are at an all time high in terms of warming. I wanted to dispel any notion that there is any cooling. At the very least temperatures are remaining high - slight increase in fact.

those figures show that the last ten years have been the hottest in history...which is all I wanted to show.

Porgy

No, I don't think I did, and I don't think there was. You pushed a bad point, and were called on it.

Of course, if I've misunderstood what you were saying, I'd be happy to have you explain it in words a simple, non-scientific fellow like me can follow.

I want to know what you think. through all this you've done nothing but pull apart my motives, and my debating style (poor, I know, but surely irrelevent to a debate on climate change).

You've said nothing about climate change

Tell me - what do you think?

Porgy

oops!

Rockbuddy

Jay dubbleU wrote:

If you believe this I suggest you take a look at CO2 levels and temperature correlation during the Cretaceous - high levels of volcanic activity from the Deccan traps and Pacific seamounts produced very high levels of CO2 much of which was absorbed by the oceans indirectly producing chalk deposites and raising the temperature to the point where forests which produced coal flourished at the poles.
CO2 traps the sun's heat in the lower atmosphere - increased CO2 traps higher levels of heat

Ok, I should be more precise, as I said CO2 is a greenhouse gas and if it was the level of the Cretaceous period (I believe 10x more than today, no) then it may be more prevalent as a greenhouse gas today. There is not a saturation point of CO2 today, at best man creates 30% of total CO2 emissions (although this varies depending on the source). Now CO2 makes up (at most, this is highly variable) 25% of greenhouse gases. Water vapour makes up the majority but we are not going on about that as it is almost 100% natural and out of our control. The last 10 years the global temperature seems to have plateaued but CO2 in still rising, where's the correlation there? It's not that simple no, but even if we cut all man made CO2 emissions would that effect global climate? Probably not.

My whole point was carbon and CO2 is essential for life where the media / CC/AGW activists have demonised them.

Porgy

Greg66 wrote:

[Interesting that in that thread, and this one, you run pretty quickly to the "they're all out to get me and they're personally abusing me" refuge, when in fact, all anyone is doing is challenging your view. .

Greg66 wrote:

Must admit, it says a lot that when faced with a bit of resistance, the hair-shirt wearing doomsaying GW Cardinals/zealots/evangelists all flee for the hills like a gigantic flock of chickens, clucking and spilling feathers all the way.

Ah well, never mind. It was fun while it lasted.

Greg66 wrote:

[ if you don't like being stereotyped, too bad.

*Say Hi to Dave Angel for me!

You can't resist it can you?

And after going back through your posts - I can see nothing of any substance in any of your posts.

Porgy

Greg66 wrote:

Anyhoo. In the spirit of that dreadful Macca song, I'm going to call a unilateral truce until after Boxing Day. I plan to play figurative footy in No Man's Land in the meantime. If you want to continue fighting, knock yerself out

No - won't be continuing - just need to reply to this lot.

I came on this thread to discuss climate change - but end up in pointless bickering with someone who loves the sound of his own voice.

Gregg66 wrote:

Then you said (in summary) temps are only falling now because of the Sun, and although the Sun was driving temperature up to 40 years ago, it isn't any more (we are). So the Sun was driving temperature, and now it isn't, man is, except that it is now because solar activity is down and that explains the recent temperature decrease. But man made efforts would have driven temperature up. Except for the Sun.

oh and thanks for putting word in my mouth - again you show you can't be bothered to find out what the argument is, so you half read it, change it so it amuses you and makes me look silly. :roll:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17102-solar-cycle-will-be-weakest-since-1928-forecasters-say.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125691.100-global-warming-will-the-sun-come-to-our-rescue.html

If your read those articles then you will see there is an interesting discussion to be had around this - it's far from clear cut as you seem to think it is - and as I said before but went ignored, I'm not dogmatic and i sit in a grey area of relative doubt but trying to keep up with the latest pronouncements - but again - not something you want to hear i guess. -

You don't want a discussion that is clear - you just do what is in my sig - the automatic contradiction of what the other person says.

anyway - you said you didn;t want to argue anymore (and I haven't paid my five pound).

When you have something to say about climate change - and evidence to basck yourself up - then we have somehting to talk about.

till then....

supersonic

C02 is not the only driver in the global temperatures that we see plotted. As has been pointed out, it is a complex mix of systems that produce the end mean temp that we measure year on year. Just because the temperatures have levelled off in the past 10 years does not mean that CO2 has no effect - it could well be it would be cooler without the rises in C02.

The same can be said of those who quote the massive CO2 levels years ago and no apparent rise in temps - the Earth could have been a lot further from the Sun in one of the cycles, the atmosphere full of dust etc. We certainly know the Earth's orbit and it isn't suddenly going to veer off and cool us down in the next 100 years, and it is the next 100 years that are critical to us.

Greenhouse gassses warm the planet. No scientist denies that. We rely on greenhouse gasses. The physics of the gasses is well understood. You increase the gasses, then you increase the contribution to the mean temp. As I said before, the key is how significant is this compared to the smaller scale natural cycles and statistical fluctuations we see at the present. 0.5 degree on top may not be noticable. 6 degrees would be very noticable. The IPCC quotes a predicted increase in mean temps of 1-6 degrees. 6 degrees seems very unlikely, especially if you read fully the paper I posted earlier. 1-2 seems most likely.

And lets stop the nit picking eh?!

Jay dubbleU

I quite agree with you that CO2 is an essential for life and that we are carbon based lifeforms - however the ratios of common atmospheric gases have varied considerably throughout Earth history - for instance the Carboniferous had higher levels of O2 than at present.
My argument is that there has always been and always will be fluctions in the climate - taken to extremes this leads to snowball Earth or to the high temperatures of the Cretaceous - however a number of factors have to be taken into account to produce these longterm changes - flow of warm water to the poles, position of the continents, volcanic activity etc.
The recent apparent reduction in warming overall has been attributed to increased industrialisation in the developing world where use of coal has produced aerosols which reflect back much of the Suns heat - cleaner fuels and the reduction of industry in the West has lead to Europe becoming warmer faster than the average for the rest of the world.
Since there have been no major volcanic events or substantial changes to oceanic currents there must be another factor contributing to the recent more exteme climatic events and the increased acidification of the oceans.

As for Greg66 - he delights in winding people up and he's so old that he'll be dead by the time climate change begins to bite

Porgy

Jay dubbleU wrote:

As for Greg66 - he delights in winding people up and he's so old that he'll be dead by the time climate change begins to bite

I'm hoping his absence will allow a proper discussion to take place - for a few days anyway