Climate change

[Thedelldays]

There's obviously been volcanoes, but no real noticable increase in the last half a century.

 

Also I would guess that if Mount Pinatubo had beltched out billions of tons of CO2 in 1991 there would have been a noticable sudden increase measured.

 

Scientists have looked at the data, are think they are better placed than you or me to decide what correlates better Man's CO2 or Volcanoes.

scientists tell us alot of things that are wrong

[aintforever]

scientists tell us alot of things that are wrong

 

So you think the wise thing to do is ignore all expert opinion because sometimes they are wrong - genius idea, Delldays for Prime Minister.

 

So when a doctor tells you to stop smoking or die you will carry on because "sometimes they are wrong - cancer was around long before cigarettes".

[Saint Paul C]

Worth a read IMHO, regardless of pro/anti MMCC position.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

[Minty]

Worth a read IMHO, regardless of pro/anti MMCC position.

Worth a read, yes, although the position of the author is clear. I'm no scientist and so can't really offer any review of what he says... which is where my biggest problem with all of the scientific information (both for and against MMCC) coming out into the public domain lies...

 

Most 'normal' people reading that article will probably not take in anymore than 10% of it, and won't be able to argue for or against it. All it actually serves to do is drum up support for thsoe who believe MMCC is a myth/fraud or whatever phrase is chosen, and once again just looks for people to sue/blame/hang, instead of really advancing the research and helping find out more.

 

The politics is infuriating... people (on both sides of the argument) talk as thought their point of view is proven and cannot be disputed, and that the case should be closed... The day we think that, is the day we die. Only by accepting our ignorance will we continue to learn about the world we live in.

 

Science and theory are also all very well, but try telling some of the now extinct species that used to live on various mountain ranges that actually, average temperatures are not going up at all, and the reason you're now extinct must be something else. These species had to move higher and higher up the mountain to continue to live in a zone where the temperature was constant for them, but once they reached the top there was nowhere to go.

 

'The Weather Makers' is a great book which is full of real-life examples, survey results and first hand accounts of real-world effects of the changes in weather, and the effect on thousands of species as a result.

 

Now, please realise that I'm not saying this is definately down to human influence or otherwise, but the temperature rises are, IMO, clear, and it is these real-world examples which will always win for me over scientific analysis any day of the week.

[aintforever]

Worth a read IMHO, regardless of pro/anti MMCC position.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

 

Whilst it's right to question the science this just stinks of a the politically motivated resorting to the desperate last refuge of "all science is corrupt".

 

The NOAA is just one of many scientific bodies, I'm pretty sure they can all measure temperature. In theory it doesn't matter wether you measure temperature in warm or cold places anyway, there are local conditions effecting temperature everywhere, it's how temperature varies over time that's being measured and I'm sure the scientists are more than aware of the Heat Island Effect, I did that in GCSE geography.

 

I would ignore any politically motivated articles anyway, either left or right wing, they will all have an agenda.

[No 2 to Maybush]

I would ignore any politically motivated articles anyway, either left or right wing, they will all have an agenda.

 

Now you're getting close to the nub of the matter. The same could be said of scientists, BTW, i.e. they will all have an agenda.

[aintforever]

Now you're getting close to the nub of the matter. The same could be said of scientists, BTW, i.e. they will all have an agenda.

 

What, it's all made up so they can get funding? I find that pretty hard to believe, the first scientist to actually come up with a concrete theory to disprove man made climate change would not be short of funding. Would also probably win a nobel prize.

[Whitey Grandad]

What, it's all made up so they can get funding? I find that pretty hard to believe, the first scientist to actually come up with a concrete theory to disprove man made climate change would not be short of funding. Would also probably win a nobel prize.

 

They overemphasize the serious of the problem so that they can get more funding. A lot of scaremongering goes on.

[badgerx16]

They overemphasize the serious of the problem so that they can get more funding. A lot of scaremongering goes on.

And maybe the vested interest of 'big business', particularly in the States, and especially of the hydrocarbon based multinationals, are on a mission to under-emphasise and play down the potential issues to serve their own selfish agendas ? A lot of hot air and smokescreens; as has been mentioned before, very similar to the activities of the tobacco companies and their rearguard action against medical evidence, ( a lot of which was poo-poo'd and derided in exactly the same way ).

[Whitey Grandad]

And maybe the vested interest of 'big business', particularly in the States, and especially of the hydrocarbon based multinationals, are on a mission to under-emphasise and play down the potential issues to serve their own selfish agendas ? A lot of hot air and smokescreens; as has been mentioned before, very similar to the activities of the tobacco companies and their rearguard action against medical evidence, ( a lot of which was poo-poo'd and derided in exactly the same way ).

As we've said before, everyone has an agenda.

[badgerx16]

As we've said before, everyone has an agenda.

See St G, it is possible to have a reasoned debate and accept that the other side has a valid point, without resorting to the playground antics of an 8 year old

[Ponty]

Yeah, StG, so nyah nyah ne nyah nyah.

[aintforever]

As we've said before, everyone has an agenda.

 

You would have thought the scientists employed by oil and energy companies with all their financial backing would have found a concrete scientific theory to disprove man made global warming by now wouldn't you?

 

All we have is the odd scientist discredited, a few email hacked. Why? they have no scientific case at all and have no proof of some bizarre worldwide conspiracy.

[Whitey Grandad]

You would have thought the scientists employed by oil and energy companies with all their financial backing would have found a concrete scientific theory to disprove man made global warming by now wouldn't you?

 

All we have is the odd scientist discredited, a few email hacked. Why? they have no scientific case at all and have no proof of some bizarre worldwide conspiracy.

There's no real proof either way. Nobody can prove it's man-made, and what temporary changes there have been may only be temporary. All that is left is belief and opinion. As they say about the existence of God, if you need proof then you have no faith.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/

 

This is a good piece. It highlights how the debate has been stifled.

[buctootim]

No competent scientists dispute that different gases trap heat more effectively than others - its the whole reason we put argon in double glazing. Higher concentrations of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and a few others trap more heat in the atmosphere. Indeed without some of those gases temperatures on earth would be around 20c colder than they are now and we'd all be huddled round the equator trying to keep warm. Those facts arent seriously disputed by anybody. So whilst its possible to argue than sun activity and natural weather cycles all play a part - which is true - if you know that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been going up since the industrial revolution and also that the planet is getting warmer - why would you not control ghg emissions? Its likely that ghg emissions are driving climate change and the costs of a warmer planet are going to be far higher than the costs of removing carbon from our human activities. You pay a small price to prevent the massive costs of a calamity - its the whole basis on which we insure our houses against burning down or being hit by a plane. You might not think its likely to happen but you sure as hell dont want to be totally screwed if it does.

[Whitey Grandad]

Water vapour again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246904/Water-vapour-responsible-slowdown-global-warming.html

[buctootim]

Water vapour again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246904/Water-vapour-responsible-slowdown-global-warming.html

 

Yes water vapour traps heat too. And as temperatures rise due to higher ghgs you get more evaporation and since warmer air can hold more water vapour than cooler you get ever higher temperatures - known as positive feedback. Did the Mail not mention that part? What a surprise.

[Handyman]

The answer to climate change/global warming?

 

Cheap non polluting energy?

 

http://www.steorn.com/

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Has St.G died?

[No 2 to Maybush]

Here's an interesting snippet I came across today:

 

Wikipedia is a primary player in the ClimateGate scam, led by William Connolley, cofounder of Mikey Mann's RealClimate.org:

 

One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team "U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley" would take on particularly crucial duties.

 

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known " Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003 ... he rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

 

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it " more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred " over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions...

 

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.

 

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

 

Al Gore's Mann-made Global Warming nonsense is a scam on a magnitude that makes the Madoff heist look tame in comparison.

 

Make of it what you will.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes water vapour traps heat too. And as temperatures rise due to higher ghgs you get more evaporation and since warmer air can hold more water vapour than cooler you get ever higher temperatures - known as positive feedback. Did the Mail not mention that part? What a surprise.

Quite the opposite. More clouds equals less heating.

[badgerx16]

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

HTH :cool:

[greg_hill]

"You would have thought the scientists employed by oil and energy companies with all their financial backing would have found a concrete scientific theory to disprove man made global warming by now wouldn't you?"

 

You can't prove a negative. I cannot prove that there are no goblins living in my garden. I can only show you that there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea.

 

MMGW is similar. The IPCC have been throwing out warning about GW for some years now. Each time their warnings do not come to fruition, they change them. I do believe that we are on our fourth warning that this year's increase in temperature will be unprecedented.

 

I understand the scepticism and feelings that 'everyone in this debate has an agenda' but the beauty of science is that, ultimately, it cannot be influenced by politics. Eventually, it will become obvious that we are either pushing temperatures up drastically or we are not. However, let's bear in mind that the IPCC leader has had billions of dollars worth of investments in energy companies exposed by the media. Someone with such a clear conflict of interests should consider his position untenable IMHO.

 

I'm not a scientist, but having taken the time to read up extensively on this issue (though not on this thread) I have come to the conclusion that anthropogenic factors will only account for a net average increase of 0.7 degrees over the next one hundred years or so. The money we are pouring into this problem could be spent in so many better ways.

 

I invite questions or challenges to my theory :-)

[greg_hill]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

HTH :cool:

William Connelly and others were - and are - responsible for weighing very heavy criticism of respected scientists who disagree with their theories and giving disproportionate coverage to lesser achieving scientists who agree with them.

 

An example I know of from first hand experience: Connelly or one of his colleagues removed a citation of co2science.org - a site run by a university scholar and his sons who are both phd's - from a Wikipedia article. The stated reason was: 'they cannot be considered reliable'. In the same article, Connelly listed his own website as a cited source!

 

He even removed my message on the discussion page asking if such behaviour was not a conflict of interests for a website that should present a balanced view.

 

The Mediaeval Warm Period is made to look highly questionable in the Wiki article. In reality there are hundreds of respected papers from various sources around the world that present very strong evidence that it occurred.

[badgerx16]

 

The Mediaeval Warm Period is made to look highly questionable in the Wiki article. In reality there are hundreds of respected papers from various sources around the world that present very strong evidence that it occurred.

But the post above from No2TM states that the MWP had been removed from Wiki. I would add the usual health warning; if Wiki is your only source, you have very little foundation to your argument, ( whichever side you are taking ).

 

Are you aware of this project being run at my old Alma Mater ? http://geography.swan.ac.uk/millennium/index.htm

 

The following research project is being established; http://www.swan.ac.uk/geography/PostgraduateStudy/ResearchTopics/MedievalWarmPeriod/.

 

From this I would assume that the evidence for the MWP is still being developed and evaluated.

[badgerx16]

A bit tongue in cheek;

 

What is your explanation for the lack of snow in Vancouver ?

 

Come on St G, you must have sobered up enough after the SuperBowl.

[Saint Paul C]

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

 

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

 

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

 

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

 

http://Link to article|http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

[greg_hill]

@Badger

Well it's always good to investigate and confirm facts for yourself, but the evidence for the MWP is overwhelming. Many reports in many journals from a wide variety of scientists using various types of proxy dating have confirmed this. Almost every major country in the world has evidence of a MWP.

 

That's not in any way meant to denigrate this new study, I think it's a good thing.

 

 

 

@ Paul C, the link to that article doesn't work and google only gives me copies from web forums, etc. I think it's important we bear in mind that global warming / climate change and anthropogenic climate change are different things entirely.

 

There is some evidence that the ice caps are receding in some areas. There is some evidence that some species of animals are migrating due to climate change. None of this shows that human activity is responsible, If co2 emissions are driving up climate, surely the trend would be linear and strong. In fact, temperatures have dropped over the last six years or so and will likely fluctuate over the next six. This seems to me to be entirely in keeping with a long term warming trend following the little ice age in the seventeenth century. The recession of the ice caps also fits in with this. The evidence for co2 emissions causing any of this is very, very weak.

[Saint Paul C]

@ Paul C, the link to that article doesn't work and google only gives me copies from web forums, etc. I think it's important we bear in mind that global warming / climate change and anthropogenic climate change are different things entirely.

 

There is some evidence that the ice caps are receding in some areas. There is some evidence that some species of animals are migrating due to climate change. None of this shows that human activity is responsible, If co2 emissions are driving up climate, surely the trend would be linear and strong. In fact, temperatures have dropped over the last six years or so and will likely fluctuate over the next six. This seems to me to be entirely in keeping with a long term warming trend following the little ice age in the seventeenth century. The recession of the ice caps also fits in with this. The evidence for co2 emissions causing any of this is very, very weak.

 

 

see link http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

[benjii]

I find that Margaret Thatcher summed up my position quite well in 1990:

 

‘Many of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event. It is sensible to

improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently; it's sensible to develop alternative and sustainable

energy sources; it's sensible to replant the forests which we consume; it's sensible to re-examine

industrial processes; it's sensible to tackle the problem of waste."

[Whitey Grandad]

I find that Margaret Thatcher summed up my position quite well in 1990:

 

 

‘

Many of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event. It is sensible to

improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently; it's sensible to develop alternative and sustainable

energy sources; it's sensible to replant the forests which we consume; it's sensible to re-examine

industrial processes; it's sensible to tackle the problem of waste."

I quite agree. What I hate are signs put up by Eastleigh BC saying 'Tacking Climate Change'.

[saintfully]

@Badger

Well it's always good to investigate and confirm facts for yourself, but the evidence for the MWP is overwhelming. Many reports in many journals from a wide variety of scientists using various types of proxy dating have confirmed this. Almost every major country in the world has evidence of a MWP.

 

That's not in any way meant to denigrate this new study, I think it's a good thing.

 

 

 

@ Paul C, the link to that article doesn't work and google only gives me copies from web forums, etc. I think it's important we bear in mind that global warming / climate change and anthropogenic climate change are different things entirely.

 

There is some evidence that the ice caps are receding in some areas. There is some evidence that some species of animals are migrating due to climate change. None of this shows that human activity is responsible, If co2 emissions are driving up climate, surely the trend would be linear and strong. In fact, temperatures have dropped over the last six years or so and will likely fluctuate over the next six. This seems to me to be entirely in keeping with a long term warming trend following the little ice age in the seventeenth century. The recession of the ice caps also fits in with this. The evidence for co2 emissions causing any of this is very, very weak.

 

No reason for this to be the case if the base level of temperature fluctuates. In these circumstances, increased temperature (man-made) would simply be in addition to the fluctuating base and therefore the trend may appear to rise and fall, whilst actually bearing an increase.

 

Oh, and past temperature trends should not be taken as indicative of future temperature trends.

[greg_hill]

Obviously it would depend on the severity of the effect. Given that temperatures have shown a net drop over the last six years when co2 emissions have peaked, this would indicate the effect is weak if present at all, which is what I believe in any case.

 

Please show where I have used past temperature trends as indicative of future temperature trends.

[saintfully]

Obviously it would depend on the severity of the effect. Given that temperatures have shown a net drop over the last six years when co2 emissions have peaked, this would indicate the effect is weak if present at all, which is what I believe in any case.

 

Please show where I have used past temperature trends as indicative of future temperature trends.

 

My point regarding using past temperatures as guides to the future is that it assumes the system is operating in the same way. This is the assumption you make when you argue that a net drop (unanticipated and surprising to many, incidentally) over the last 6 years indicates global warming is weak or not real.

 

Since man-made global warming would effectively create a new system, there is no reason to believe that dropping temperatures will be maintained or are predictable in the way they have been previously. In this new system, the effects of man-made global warming may be to introduce an enhanced level of stochasticity - leading to unexpected falls and rises. Concievably, that is what we are seeing now.

 

I would say that the MWP is evidence that climate is capable of quite rapid change. I think that a disruption to climate equilibrium is likely to give rise to unpredictable outcomes - some of which may be rapid. Thus, making an assumption that a 6 yr fall in temps is best interpreted now as indicating that man-made global warming is a fallacy might be a little naive/foolish. The trend could be reversed quite radically in the next 6 years.

 

As has been said many times before, precautionary principle should prevail.

[greg_hill]

I'm really struggling to follow your syllogies here.

 

Your first point was: 'Oh, and past temperature trends should not be taken as indicative of future temperature trends. " which you have now backtracked and deemed to be incomplete, and it was: "......if anthropogenic global warming is real'.

 

"Since man-made global warming would effectively create a new system,"

 

I'm sorry I don't follow. What new system is this? What is the scientific basis upon which stochasticity would be increased?

 

"I would say that the MWP is evidence that climate is capable of quite rapid change"

 

Given that the MWP lasted 400 - 600 years and we are now talking about a period of about thirty years, and you then lock on to my point about six years, how are you defining 'rapid' and what is the relevancy of it?

 

"I think that a disruption to climate equilibrium is likely to give rise to unpredictable outcomes - some of which may be rapid. Thus, making an assumption that a 6 yr fall in temps is best interpreted now as indicating that man-made global warming is a fallacy might be a little naive/foolish. The trend could be reversed quite radically in the next 6 years."

 

Again, you're giving us lots of ideas but I see no logic or science behind any of them. Are you saying that the increase in co2 emissions which have, allegedly, increased radiative forcing in the troposhere have allowed us to witness the greatest snowfall in years? Why do you think this is? Why do you think the IPCC predicted net temperature increases over the previous six years? Why do you think the Met Office told us this year would be the hottest on record?

 

I think perhaps everybody would benefit more if you could actually take some time to clarify some of your syllogisms.

 

"As has been said many times before, precautionary principle should prevail. "

 

Even if that precautionary principle costs billions upon billions, wrecks industry, increases poverty and sickness in the third world and becomes more and more patently false over time?

[saintfully]

Hi Greg,

 

Im sorry if you’re struggling to follow my ‘syllogies’ (arn’t you are clever - I had to look that up).

 

I’ll try and see if my rather simple analysis of the issue can be explained so you ‘get it’.

 

Firstly though.... Thank you for pointing out the obvious mistake in my throwaway comment in my initial reply (ie. my contention that past temperature trends should not be taken as indicative of future temperature trends). Foolishly I did omit the caveat that this is only the case where it is believed anthropogenic global warming is real. Stupidly, since this is the subject under discussion I assumed this would be a given ? What a tool for thinking that.

 

So, here goes with what I reckon :

 

1) As I understand it there is more carbon ppm in the atmos now than there has been for a very long time and its been generated by human industrial activity? Do we agree on this?

 

2) Carbon in the atmos ‘traps heat’, either by acting as a shield and preventing heat dissipation, or by the warming and subsequent retention of heat by the particles themselves - giving rise to radiative heat.

 

3) If you add more heat to the atmos (more carbon equals more ‘trapping’), you add more energy to the atmos.

 

4) The atmos & wider climate can be viewed as a system, which for a very long time, has had an amount of energy input via atmos carbon. I have characterised this as the ‘old system’, because now, since carbon ppm has been greatly increased, the energy input into this system by this means has also been increased, producing a ‘new system’. Why new ? Because I would argue that global climate is very complex and our understanding of it is incomplete (eg. long term weather forecasting). For this reason I think that it would be wrong to assume that a significant change to energy inputs would give rise to predictable results. Thus, it is best understood as a different entity when making models.

 

5) In geological terms (the origin of much climate data ?), ‘rapid’ (or short) includes 6-600 years – I have assumed? My point is that this evidence of rapid change implies a measure of inherent instability in the climate, both locally (duh!) and over short time-periods, and so we shouldn’t be surprised if our models based on an ‘old system’ fail to accurately predict the ‘new system’ over small timescales – hence IPCC/Met Office fallibility.

 

(I would also add, at this point, that just as we had lots of snow, Vancouver had/has much less. My point is as facile as yours.)

 

6) Precautionary principle. I don’t accept that reacting to climate change means huge cost, wrecked industry, increased poverty and sickness. Instead, I think an engagement with environmental issues coupled with a recognition that the earths resources are finite and currently not being used in a sustainable way, is likely to reduce the problems you highlight.

 

Of course, if mm-global warming is shown to be false, stop trying to stop it. Im not sure this also means stop trying to produce sustainability ?

 

 

As as been said here many times before.... all IMHO of course.

[Master Bates]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2869904/Giant-iceberg-to-change-weather.html

[greg_hill]

Dear Saintfully,

 

Putting aside the redundant sarcasm, I would point out that this thread appears to be a debate. In a debate, there are usually people with opposing views and therefore I find it strange you would present your own view about temperature trends as a given. Still, you've backtracked twice on that now.

 

1) Yes, though your time scales seem rather idiosyncratic so can you clarify what you class as a "very long time"?

 

2) Yes, more or less.

 

3) In theory yes, however herein lies a huge flaw in the argument of alarmists. The troposphere is not showing any sign of the heating that should be expected by increased radiative forcing. If the effect were taking place as theory would have us believe, the hot spots would be easy to find. They aren't there. The IPCC are aware of this, so they simply refuse to discuss it. Others have found the occasional hot point and presented this as proof, but n reality, evidence of increased radiative forcing is simply absent.

 

4) Come on, this is a terrible argument. You even contradict yourself by suggesting that an increase in radiative forcing, despite the fact it has always happened, is a new system. In the very next sentence you point out, correctly, that climate is a complex beast and we don't yet fully understand its works.

 

Can you explain why an increase of one known aspect of a mechanism we don't fully understand can be classed as a 'new system'?

 

5) Please can you clarify which geological school of thought puts 6-600 years in the "rapid" bracket? Any credible website or book would do. I am not nuanced in Geology.

 

6) Of course it will. given that virtually every treaty presented at climate conferences involves some kind of tapping, how do you believe that developing nations could run their energy? Alternative energy is impractical and expensive for us, so how can we expect, say, a village family in western Africa to use it?

 

Your line "Instead, I think an engagement with environmental issues coupled with a recognition that the earths resources are finite and currently not being used in a sustainable way," is a non-sequitar and an appeal to sympathy. Nobody wants to waste resources, nobody is against environmentalism. But to equate this to wasting billions of ponds and a whole lot of co2 on pointless meetings and summit on something totally unsupported by genuine science is just foolish. Those billions would be of far greater benefit if they were used to stop waste tipping, deforestation and poaching, for example.

 

MMGW does not need to be shown to be false. The onus of proof is on the alarmists.

 

Oh and I'm not sure where you got your information about snowfall in Vancouver from, they were a centimetre short of an all time record last December:

http://www.vancouversun.com/Lots+snow+record+December/1132232/story.html

 

It's only in the last three or four weeks it dried up, so unless Global Warming only kicked in this year, I'd say it's just a little bad luck.

[saintfully]

Dear Saintfully,

 

Putting aside the redundant sarcasm, I would point out that this thread appears to be a debate. In a debate, there are usually people with opposing views and therefore I find it strange you would present your own view about temperature trends as a given. Still, you've backtracked twice on that now.

 

1) Yes, though your time scales seem rather idiosyncratic so can you clarify what you class as a "very long time"?

 

2) Yes, more or less.

 

3) In theory yes, however herein lies a huge flaw in the argument of alarmists. The troposphere is not showing any sign of the heating that should be expected by increased radiative forcing. If the effect were taking place as theory would have us believe, the hot spots would be easy to find. They aren't there. The IPCC are aware of this, so they simply refuse to discuss it. Others have found the occasional hot point and presented this as proof, but n reality, evidence of increased radiative forcing is simply absent.

 

4) Come on, this is a terrible argument. You even contradict yourself by suggesting that an increase in radiative forcing, despite the fact it has always happened, is a new system. In the very next sentence you point out, correctly, that climate is a complex beast and we don't yet fully understand its works.

 

Can you explain why an increase of one known aspect of a mechanism we don't fully understand can be classed as a 'new system'?

 

5) Please can you clarify which geological school of thought puts 6-600 years in the "rapid" bracket? Any credible website or book would do. I am not nuanced in Geology.

 

6) Of course it will. given that virtually every treaty presented at climate conferences involves some kind of tapping, how do you believe that developing nations could run their energy? Alternative energy is impractical and expensive for us, so how can we expect, say, a village family in western Africa to use it?

 

Your line "Instead, I think an engagement with environmental issues coupled with a recognition that the earths resources are finite and currently not being used in a sustainable way," is a non-sequitar and an appeal to sympathy. Nobody wants to waste resources, nobody is against environmentalism. But to equate this to wasting billions of ponds and a whole lot of co2 on pointless meetings and summit on something totally unsupported by genuine science is just foolish. Those billions would be of far greater benefit if they were used to stop waste tipping, deforestation and poaching, for example.

 

MMGW does not need to be shown to be false. The onus of proof is on the alarmists.

 

Oh and I'm not sure where you got your information about snowfall in Vancouver from, they were a centimetre short of an all time record last December:

http://www.vancouversun.com/Lots+snow+record+December/1132232/story.html

 

It's only in the last three or four weeks it dried up, so unless Global Warming only kicked in this year, I'd say it's just a little bad luck.

 

Hi again Greg,

 

Overall then I think its quite clear we disagree - apart from my sarcasm being redundant.

 

One point - what you identify as a non-sequitur actually cannot be, since nowhere in the sentence do I draw any inference from an earlier comment. You are right though that I appeal for the issues to be considered sympathetically - is that a bad thing ?

 

I think now I'm going to carry on with my life with my head in the sand and ignore your opinions completely, (particularly on what is/is not genuine

science).

 

 

 

Cheers

[greg_hill]

Thanks Saintfully,

 

It's good that we can debate, disagree and do so with a bit of humour. The world would be a better place if more people could do this!

[derry]

It would all be so much more believable, if the politicians hadn't been in such a hurry to start raising taxes to be used as a top up of treasury funds, rather than for projects to reduce carbon dioxide.

 

Didn't I read somewhere, attributed to Norwich, that it has been conceded that there has been no rise in global temperatures in the last 15 years?

[badgerx16]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8550090.stm

[greg_hill]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8550090.stm

 

I don't usually respond to links without comments as I find it to be a bit lazy and arrogant, but I'll take this opportunity to point out that the Met Office failed to predict last year's snow, predicted this year would be the hottest ever and predicted last summer would be a 'barbecue summer'. Their failure was so monumental that the BBC have considered dropping them and the large bonuses awarded tot heir directors caused an uproar. Do we now trust them to be so authoritative about climate change

 

 

If you read that report, it is bizarre.

 

"The study, which looks at research published since the IPCC's report, has found that changes in Arctic sea ice, atmospheric moisture, saltiness of parts of the Atlantic Ocean and temperature changes in the Antarctic are consistent with human influence on our climate"

 

What is consistent? How are they measuring "human influence"? How are they ensuring that these changes are not independent of "human influence"? What are the changes? What is the evidence that these changes are definitely caused by human activity?

 

It raises more questions than answers.

[buctootim]

The often ignored consequence of putting more and more carbon into the atmosphere is ocean acidification. Half of CO2 is dissolved into the oceans, forming carbonic acid. As the oceans get more acidic it becomes impossible for many creatures which require calcium carbonate to form shells. Whilst you may not care about this small and mostly uninteresting creatures, they form the food sourcefor the things most people do care about.

 

Since 1 billion people worldwide depend on the oceans for their primary source of protein and 200 million livelihoods depend on fishing, this alone, disregarding climate change, is enough reason to radically reduce emissions.

 

People may disagree about the exact outcomes of climate change, but ocean acidification is linear - the more carbon in the atmosphere then the more acidic the oceans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca

 

Also this work comes from a separate discipline, Marine Biologists, not climate scientists, so the 'having an agenda' argument doesnt wash.

[Viking Warrior]

Suddenly Im worried about climatic change.

 

was undertaking some interviews this morning and this candidate stated that

if the the gulf stream was to break up (and this may well happen) then everyone in the highlands and northern Isle would suffer a major catastrophic

climate change and these areas would be the equivilent to siberia and nobody would be able to live there due to the extreme cold tempretures.

 

Wow I never thought there was a danger of the gulf stream disappearing.

 

maybe it has already happened as Im cold today

[buctootim]

Suddenly Im worried about climatic change.

 

was undertaking some interviews this morning and this candidate stated that

if the the gulf stream was to break up (and this may well happen) then everyone in the highlands and northern Isle would suffer a major catastrophic

climate change and these areas would be the equivilent to siberia and nobody would be able to live there due to the extreme cold tempretures.

 

Wow I never thought there was a danger of the gulf stream disappearing.

 

maybe it has already happened as Im cold today

 

The UK is as far north as Nova Scotia in Canada. Its only the gulf stream which keeps us from freezing our arses off. It is a real issue.

[Whitey Grandad]

Suddenly Im worried about climatic change.

 

was undertaking some interviews this morning and this candidate stated that

if the the gulf stream was to break up (and this may well happen) then everyone in the highlands and northern Isle would suffer a major catastrophic

climate change and these areas would be the equivilent to siberia and nobody would be able to live there due to the extreme cold tempretures.

 

Wow I never thought there was a danger of the gulf stream disappearing.

 

maybe it has already happened as Im cold today

This is scaremongering. Even the direst prophets don't expect it to happen. Don't worry about it.

[buctootim]

This is scaremongering. Even the direst prophets don't expect it to happen. Don't worry about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/impact/gulf_stream.shtml

[greg_hill]

The often ignored consequence of putting more and more carbon into the atmosphere is ocean acidification. Half of CO2 is dissolved into the oceans, forming carbonic acid. As the oceans get more acidic it becomes impossible for many creatures which require calcium carbonate to form shells. Whilst you may not care about this small and mostly uninteresting creatures, they form the food sourcefor the things most people do care about.

 

Since 1 billion people worldwide depend on the oceans for their primary source of protein and 200 million livelihoods depend on fishing, this alone, disregarding climate change, is enough reason to radically reduce emissions.

 

People may disagree about the exact outcomes of climate change, but ocean acidification is linear - the more carbon in the atmosphere then the more acidic the oceans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca

 

Also this work comes from a separate discipline, Marine Biologists, not climate scientists, so the 'having an agenda' argument doesnt wash.

 

I agree with you that it's an important topic we must consider. However it's not at all clear cut and there exists little evidence that increased co2 levels will cause unprecedented acidification or cause real damage. There exists some tenuous evidence (observation of certain aquatic life near volcanic areas, etc.) that suggests certain species will be less healthy, but will continue to reproduce. However, even then we are talking about 200-300 years into the future under the assumption we will continue to pump out co2 all that time.

 

These articles may be of interest:

 

http://co2science.org/subject/o/oceanacidification.php