Climate change anyone?

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

There is ample evidence available to form an opinon.
I cannot understand how any one can not realise that an anthropogenically mediated global warming is occurring with dire consequences for our offsprings future and I apologise to my offspring that I wasn't able to convince the deniers of their delusion, mark.

 

Ironically enough, down in Kent we're under about 7 inches of snow which is the most we've had for 25 years or so. That is being ascribed to global warming. Mind you, so was the relative lack of snow for a few decades.

I would agree that climate change is happening. The real question is are we causing it, or is it normal cyclic variation?

 

cartoonists can be so clever and get to the important bits

 

LOL! Yeah they are all good reasons to reduce fossil fuel consumption! None of which are climate change of course.

 

Hmmm....some might say that climate change 'believers' have a vested interest in promoting their cause to keep funding $ flowing.

Just this weekend we have heard that as opposed to K.Rudd's campaign that the Great Barrier Reef will be extinct within a few years...it is actually healthier and happier than ever.

I'm sure no one would agree that man made pollution is a good thing. Bring on clean green energy. Even more nuclear power IMHO.

The issue is wether CO2 emissions by humans/industry/agriculture are causing global warming and we need to cripple the world economy 'fighting' it. Is the world actually warming? The last 7 years has not shown any statistically significant rises in global mean temperature. I feel that the science is far from truly settled.

Gaia anyone?

LL

 

As individuals we are all responsible. My thoughts (for what they're worth) : We should pressure manufacturers to do more. Instead of churning out poor quality products with a life span which will only just meet a 1 year warranty. Insist they produce products which do not need to be replaced annually eg washing machines, kettles etc. Also why aren't more products compatible eg. mobile phone chargers? I'm sure many people have a drawer full of chargers which are neither use nor ornament when you buy a different phone.

If items are manufactured properly to begin with then surely people will not be so reliant on new goods.

Improve public transport so it's actually of use to people. Not the scruffy, overpriced, unreliable service we currently have.

Possibly too late to reverse the damage now. :sinking:

I'm doing apathy today.

 

I was going to but I can't be bothered. I'll do it tomorrow.

 

Hi all,

I have been following this passionate debate for sometime and as everyone I have my own thinking about that.

After reading some papers on the subject, it seems that scientific community agrees that a climate change is occurring and it is irreversible. Mainly the discussion is about:

- Have the mankind provoked the current climate change?
- Can mankind slow the climate change consequences?
- Is this climate change only related to CO2 emissions?

Of course, mankind activities have a direct impact on our environment and we have examples such as acid rain, air pollution or land and water contamination. But, it is not a new phenomena; in southern Spain there is a place called Rio Tinto where it take place the first environmental demonstration the February 4st of 1888. It ended tragically when the army fired and killed more than 100 people. After more than 2000 years of intensive miner working, Rio Tinto is the most contaminated land on earth but it has become a natural park because there is live, micro-organisms who live under extreme conditions, and all "cleaning" working have been stopped. I explain that to illustrate that we have advanced a lot in 100 years about environmental protection policies and live will find its way through the most difficult conditions.

There is a lot of disinformation about climate change. First of all nobody knows if global warming its for good or bad. But, I am sure that a new glacial age would extinct our civilization.

Finally, as LuckyLisfranc wrote there are vested interested also related to change our energy and industrial economical model blaming CO2 emissions as the root of all evils.

Just for thought.

 

Isn't it a common practice when you're losing an argument on facts some turn to smearing.
They have to be paid to do their research, so they apply for grants, don't most scientists, oh maybe not those in the pay of the fossil fuel giants!

lol where do you get this report.
I went looking and first one I found was "Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009 - Full Report", compiled by Aust. Govt. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Published July, 2009)
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/40749/GBRMPA_ORCH3.pdf

I've scanned it and only found negative comments:

"The temperature gradient along the Great Barrier Reef has shifted markedly over the last century…. When averaged across the last 30 years, sea surface temperature in the Great Barrier Reef has increased by about 0.4oC, compared to records averaged across 30 years in the late 1800s.10 The two warmest five-year average sea surface temperatures have been recorded in the last decade ….
Analyses of coral cores in corals dating back to the mid seventeenth century suggest that current temperatures are warmer now than at any other time in that period"

"It is estimated that, globally, an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the ocean has
already caused a decrease in oceanic pH of 0.1 units compared to the long-term average"

"Sea temperatures are increasing because of climate change, leading to mass bleaching of corals, and increasing ocean acidity is affecting rates of calcification."

"mean that the health of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem is reduced."

"Impacts from climate change have already been witnessed and all parts of the ecosystem are vulnerable to its increasing effects with coral reef habitats the most vulnerable."

"At the scale of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem, most habitats or species groups are in good condition; however there have been declines in species that play key ecological roles. These declines have been mainly due to direct use of the ecosystem, land management practices in the catchment, or declining environmental variables because of climate change."

"Sea temperature, sea level and sedimentation are all expected to increase because of climate change and catchment runoff, causing deterioration to the ecosystem."

"addressing climate change impacts requires global responses;"

"The outlook for the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem, along with most other coral reef ecosystems, is at a crossroad, and it is decisions made in the next few years that are likely to determine its long-term future. Unavoidably, future predictions of climate change dominate most aspects of the Great Barrier Reef’s outlook over the next few decades.
The extent and persistence of the damage will depend to a large degree on the extent to which climate change is addressed worldwide and on the resilience of the ecosystem in the immediate future.
Many ecosystem components are already showing some effects from climate change (for example increased frequency and severity of coral bleaching and decreased density of coral structures).
It is only with atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide between current levels and about 400ppm that the key groups of species and habitats of the Great Barrier Reef have low or moderate vulnerability to climate change. If the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increases beyond these levels then there will be serious consequences for the Great Barrier Reef. At a concentration of 500ppm, it is predicted that many components of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem would be highly vulnerable, including seabirds, fish, marine reptiles and plankton. At about this concentration of carbon dioxide, hard corals would likely become functionally extinct and coral reefs would be eroding rapidly.

The greatest threats facing the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem are from climate change. (p.172)

No arguments here, unfortunately we have to turn to nuclear energy (like Iran is attempting to) until scientists work out the alternative 'clean' technologies

The question is why would you delay preventative measures, just because a minority of pundits doubt it, we'd be bloody stupid!

Whoooah! Please supply a reference for this one. It amazes me. If you have a tooth problem you consult a dentist, a foot problem a podiatrist, why not believe the climate scientists re. the climate??? Most of the scientist deniers are usually geologists, however a poll (APEGGA, Alberta, Canada), in 2008, of 51,000 geologists, engineers and geophysicists, over 99% believed that the climate was changing and 72% believed anthropogenically derived factors were involved. And these are the cynical scientists!
But please the reference to the graph article.

If you have time you-tube "Plimer Monbiot", a recent confrontation where the denier is shown to be what he is, a fraud.

Well we are surely doing our darndest to upset the balance aren't we.

all the best for christmas, mark

 

Exactly.

Mass extinction of species, no worries; devastating changes to primary production, yep I can live with that; expansion of regions suspect to certain diseases, I've got relatives in abundance, lose a few, wouldn't notice! That's 'off the top of my head', sure there's other considerations.

Funny I always thought it was the other way round, you know the 'fossil fuel suppliers' pushing their agenda,
mark

 

The main argument re the the "controversy" of climate change is whether what is occurring is man-made. We wont know for sure till its too late.

The main road block to change is the reality of a "low-carbon" or even "no-carbon" lifestyle. And i dont mean just using low energy light bulbs! Life has to change in many ways, particularly in the larger countries where travel burns huge amounts of fuel.

The reality is the age of oil is going to end soon, there is no way output of oil will rise to the 120 + million barrels per day needed by 2030. That means the price of oil is going to rise exponentionally in the next decade to the point that it un-economic to use. We as a speices need to find another fuel source for personal transport and food production/transportation. This will probably be coal-fired electricity combined with carbon-capture technology. Nuclear takes too long to build but will come in more and more. This necessity of the need to replace oil will be the driver in reducing emmissions.

Forget "renewables" for the time being. They are never going to be anything other than a photo-shoot for politicians. The payback is way too long.

 

Yes please.

 

Surprise!! The climate is changing.

It all depends on your viewpoint. The glass is either half full or half empty.

I think I'll have another glass, thank you.

 

for the "CLIMATEGATE"'ers,

affectationately, mark

 

"I cannot understand how any one can not realise that an anthropogenically mediated global warming is occurring with dire consequences ..................."

So you've seen Al Gore's movie!!!!!

Well it was in the 30's in Florida this weeks and Wisconsin has had the two coldest DEcembers (in a row) on record!

Global Warming..maybe.........
MY FAULT ... I doubt it.......

Please, don't you think we get blamed for enough with getting for the weather???

Steve

 

Goodaye Steve,

, no I haven't seen it, don't need to (I realise he should have been your 43rd president though!).

Yep, the climate is changing, which is a 'bummer' for our kids and their kids and so on.

As certain as the Earth isn't flat! The statistics are freely available.

The changes in the weather, it's mans fault for sure, they obviously didn't intentionally mean to but here we are!,
mark

 

Originally Posted by drsarbes
Well it was in the 30's in Florida this weeks and Wisconsin has had the two coldest DEcembers (in a row) on record!
Yep, the climate is changing, which is a 'bummer' for our kids and their kids and so on.


YOUR original post stated GLOBAL WARMING not CLIMATE CHANGE!
WHich is it?
Warming or cooling (AND PLEASE DON"T give me the excuse that periods of unseasonable cold weather is part of global warming!)

The entire global warming data collection and interpretation is a bunch of outcome based pseudoscience propagated and paid for by liberal agenda politicians. Period. It's a method to redistribute the worlds wealth!!! It's so obvious.

((((University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU)...........how's this quote from a leading reasearcher "sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."

See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

And no, Gore (thank GOD) was not elected President. It's bad enough we're stuck with Obama for 3 more years.

Mark, perhaps you should read something NOT written by left wingers!

Steve

 

Just saw this today..thought you'd like it (especially the next to the last paragraph!)

Maybe you can find something else to feel guilty about. ( aaaaaaa that's a haha)

Steve

======================================
30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says
======================================

From Miami to Maine, Savannah to Seattle, America is caught in an icy grip that one of the U.N.'s top global warming proponents says could mark the beginning of a mini ice age.

Oranges are freezing and millions of tropical fish are dying in Florida, and it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze, says Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modelers.

Latif thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we're in for 30 years of cooler temperatures -- a mini ice age, he calls it, basing his theory on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the world's oceans.

Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany's Kiel University and an author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, believes the lengthy cold weather is merely a pause -- a 30-years-long blip -- in the larger cycle of global warming, which postulates that temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.

At a U.N. conference in September, Latif said that changes in ocean currents known as the North Atlantic Oscillation could dominate over manmade global warming for the next few decades. Latif said the fluctuations in these currents could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.

Latif is a key member of the UN's climate research arm, which has long promoted the concept of global warming. He told the Daily Mail that "a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles -- perhaps as much as 50 percent."

According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases. The agency also reports that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.

Many parts of the world have been suffering through record-setting snowfalls and arctic temperatures. The Midwest saw wind chills as low as 49 degrees below zero last week, while Europe saw snows so heavy that Eurostar train service and air travel were canceled across much of the continent. In Asia, Beijing was hit by its heaviest snowfall in 60 years.

 

I'm a bit confused, according to
the "Wisconsin State Climatology Office", dated 5 January, 2010, " The beginning of meteorological winter (December-February) saw a radical shift from the last month of autumn, which was an about the second warmest November since 1895", " December averaged slightly below normal, a reversal from November."
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/clim-watch/index.html
for a nice graph, looks like January, 2009 was a tad cold!
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/clim-watch/graphics/WI-DT-12-00.gif

That's right, global warming, that's a climate parameter, temperature.

The terms 'average', as in global average temperature, and 'outlier' and 'lines of best fit'; so when you look at a graph you comprehend what 97% of active climate scientists (Doran & Zimmermann, " Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change", EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 90, NO. 3, 2009) are trying to tell you?
Try this one, " Every single year of this century (2001-2008) has been warmer than all years of the 20th Century except 1998 (which sticks out well above the trend line due to a strong El Niño event)." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
and this, from same article, "June and August 2009 saw the warmest land and ocean temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere ever recorded for those months. The global ocean surface temperatures in 2009 broke all previous records for three consecutive months: June, July and August. The years 2007, 2008 and 2009 had the lowest summer Arctic sea ice cover ever recorded, and in 2008 for the first time in living memory the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage were simultaneously ice-free. This feat was repeated in 2009."

I wonder if you listen / watch Savage, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and/or the loony-tune Beck? 9/11 would've only taken a few in the know and that was scoffed at and here you're claiming thousands of scientists (including 97% of active climate scientists) who attain their data / statistics from organisations such as;
GISTEMP, HadCRU, NOAA NCDC, JMA, MSU, UAH, RSS, NWS (CPC), Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, JAXA, Bremen, Arctic-Roos, DMI, RAOBCORE, HadAT, U. Wyoming, RATPAC, IUK, Sterin (CDIAC), Angell (CDIAC), ISCCP, CERES-ERBE, U. Colorado, AEROCOM, GACP, AGGI at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa, World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases, AIRS CO2 data (2003+), AHVRR data as used in Steig et al (2009), Rutgers, GLIMS glacier database, NODC;
are colluding to deceive the world for economic gain. BOOH HAH HAH HAH Seen too many movies methinks!

Pick another one! You've read this off the many sites that are pushing this line! However, what mr jones was referring to was Wahl's and Ammann's 2007 article which had "received ….2000, accepted …. 2006" a TYPO, the 2000 should be 2006. That's what Mr. Jones was referring to!

Yep you could've had Sarah Palin as VP. Would've made the USA the butt of SO many jokes, apart from further aggravating the tensions, that have been created with the invasion and occupations of 'half the middle east' and support for the crazy Zionists!

From where you're sitting Steve, everyone, with a different opinion, would look 'left'!

You're not getting your 'information' from sources that quote Revkin in the NYT or Fred Pearce in New Scientist, are you?. If so better do some more investigating because they 'stuffed it up good'

Guilty, a tad as I still drive my 4-wheel drive around and I haven't installed solar panels, so yeah, me personally, sure.

The misinterpretation, one of many. All he says is that it is possible for natural variability to create a one or two decade cooling “trend” within a longer term warming trend, he certainly did not predict cooling in the next decade.
That even under conditions of anthropogenic global warming (which would contribute a temperature rise of about 0.2 ºC over this period) a flat period or even cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996).”
I haven't listened myself but here's his talk which got twisted, http://www.wcc3.org/wcc3media/mp3/WCC3_PS3_ClimatePredictionScience.mp3
His talk starts around 23 minutes and goes to around 40.


Latif, in a recently published (2008) paper, predicts an extremely large surface warming (around 0.5 oC) in the period around 2010-2030 (see Figure 4 of:
N. S. Keenlyside, M. Latif, J. Jungclaus, L. Kornblueh & E. Roeckner (2008) Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector Nature 453, 84-88
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html

You'll have to give me a reference, but I did find this in the agency you're referring to,
"The research of thousands of scientists all over the world indicates that human activity is causing Earth to warm. Burning coal, oil, and natural gas to create energy releases greenhouse gases. These gases cause Earth’s average air temperature to rise. This is called global warming.
As Earth warms, climate patterns change"
http://nsidc.org/frozenground/climate.html

Same agency, http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier said, “Warm ocean waters helped contribute to ice losses this year, pushing the already thin ice pack over the edge. In fact, preliminary data indicates that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record, partly because less multiyear ice is surviving now, and the remaining ice is so thin.” http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure4.jpg (See Figure 4.)

mark

 

Mark:

OK, I get it. You are convinced that we the people are somehow responsible for the impending melting of the polar ice caps and the second flooding of the world.

Fine.

Global warmer - like I said / OK , maybe......our fault - NO WAY!

When people argue against the obvious ( I LIVE in Wisconsin...it's friggin colder than normal here!) (ICE hanging on Orange trees in Florida) etc.... then, well, what's the use.

If you'd like to feel guilty about all this, be my guest, but don't force me to change my life style based on
pseudo-science. If you're against our present pollution laden ozone destroying water contaminating way of life then please, move to Yemen or Haiti and make a nice hut for yourself.

Life is short, be happy. I only wish it were warmer here in Wisconsin - but it isn't!!!!!

Steve

 

CO2, just since 1960 up from 315 to 385 ppmv (Hawaii), that's only 0.039% of atmosphere, but responsible for 14.0% of LW absorption! Other trace greenhouse gases, CH4, N20, CFC, HFC's all significantly up since industrialisation (CFC & HFC's not even here before!)

I'm sorry, I don't doubt it's very cold at the moment in Wisconsin, but have to look at global numbers and the years 2000 - 2008 each individual year was warmer than all the years in the 20th century (except for the (outlier) 1998). Again I don't doubt it's 'friggin cold' in a lot of the northern hemisphere this winter!

I'd be a hypocrite if I did.

That delusion is why I keep posting on this thread

I wish you and your family all the best for the future, mark

 

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

To me, the practices of the IPCC in this case make it seem like it isn't completely delusional to think that man-made climate change is, at least in part, based on pseudo-science. I suppose this could be the ONLY example of such practice in the entire movement but I'm not optimistic.

 

I love this part:

"Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status........."

And because of this I canceled my trip to Tibet to try the north face!
Dammit!

BTW: Still freezing here in Green Bay! Who can I blame?

Steve

 

This is one example of ''failure of the review process'' in a 3000 page document published in 2007. That is it's taken over 2 years to find a mistake! This doesn't detract from the main findings! the glaciers are still 'melting' see
http://www.ossfoundation.us/project...treat_IPCC_WG1_2001.gif/image_view_fullscreen
Linking the term 'pseudoscience' with the 'climate change' lobby has been a very successful tactic on the part of the petrochemical instigated and backed denier lobby. Don't be so gullible please, mark

 

" Don't be so gullible please......."

You took the words right out of my mouth!!!!!!!!!

Steve

 

The fact that its taken 2 years to find this mistake does not necessarily presume that this is an isolated example, as it seems you are suggesting. It could just as easily mean that those publishing the reports aren't "looking" for these mistakes or are okay with with utilizing subpar scientific practices.

If it is found that an outcome of the research I am producing from my lab is based on invalid information because I was willing to accept an innacurate secondary source, would that suggest that it might be warranted to question my credibility as a scientist in general because I have demonstrated that I'm willing to utilize improper practices in my research? I would say yes.

 

yep Steve, we've definitely both defined where we stand on many issues, mark. Give me a 'denier fact' and I'll fill you in, like I have several times already. Or just keep 'sticking ya head in the sand'.

Certainly. The 2035 should have bee 2335. The 'fact' that the glaciers are still decreasing at an 'accellerated' pace doesn't perturb you??? What of the other data / statistics provided in the report, what don't you comprehend???????

It was very shoddy, and has been condemned by IPCC contributors, as it should be. But if there was ever a case that fit 'Don't throw out the baby with the bath-water" this is it. Now try discussing facts relevant to the climate change debate, name one 'fact' that the deniers are pushing that is correct!!!! I started this thread in PA but I shouldn't have needed to. It must have been the same for those that had to deal with the 'flat-earthers'!
mark

 

I understand that for those who have so much emotional capital invested in the arguments for man-made global warming that veiled (or often blatant) attacks at the person suggesting an alternative reality easily sneak into the debate ("You don't agree with me therefore you must not be capable of comprehending the high level data that I am looking at). That type of approach does not surprise me in general on the internet but I would presume a higher level of discourse on a professionally based forum. It is also interesting that your tone presumes to understand where I would land on the continuum between "Man is solely responsible for global warming and it will soon destroy us all" and "Global warming, man-made or otherwise, isn't happening at all."

In this case there seems to be at least some aspect of "Now that this came out, we must condemn it." Obviously that is all they COULD do as the practice is indefensible. However, again this does not presume that a)there are no other instances of similar practice even within the same document and b)they are reviewing their work for additional cases of sub-par practices.

At the moment, I am not debating which side's "facts" are correct. There are "experts" (defined as those with credible credentials and experience) who present arguments for and against man-made global warming. Each side attempts to discredit the experts on the other side and those whose minds are already steadfastly made up believe the data from the experts on their side as being above reproach. The point I am making at present is that for all the discrediting of the experts who doubt man made global warming (even the use of the term Denier serves as an example of the attempt to marginalize any opposing argument) that I encounter, those experts on the other side are not proving to be above reproach in their attempts to prove their side. It seems a general attitude from global warming advocates is that those who disagree are sticking their heads in the sand while those on the other side are altruistic and working for the good of all mankind with no pretense of any possible personal gain.

This is a bit of a straw man tactic (though not strictly): equate the opposing viewpoint to a ludicrous, universally discredited mindset which suggests the opposing viewpoint is as easily discredited.

That is an interesting question. If I'm on the al gore end of the spectrum then yes, I'm irate; If I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum then no, there's nothing to be perturbed about because that "fact" is faulty; and if I'm somewhere in the middle then why be perturbed at something that is happening that we cannot control - I might as well go out and shake my fist at the sun everytime a solar flare interrupts my satellite TV reception.

 

Hi Sticklyc:
Good post, well written and logical. I enjoyed reading it.
Steve

 

StickleyC, I use the term denier, as in someone who refuses to believe truths, interestingly the first definition I located on Google was "someone who declines to acknowledge some statement is true" which obviously is not the same as my meaning. If you don't want me to use the term, which yes I think is justified, please let me know what term is acceptable and I will certainly use it for you.

Guilty, emotional from frustration. I'm trying to argue data/statistics, Dr Arbes has tried and failed. I was hoping you would 'offer a claim'. Again if this is not, to you, a satisfactory way of expressing myself, please accept it as a non-aggressive phrase.

From your previous posts yes I assumed where you were on that continuum. Please correct me if my assumption is incorrect.

Yes and they've done it. I repeat why "throw out the baby with the bath water".

Completely agree.

Yes, ~97 % of 'active' climate scientists agreeing with the data. Please let's discuss any interpretations of data.

Yep no argument.

See my opening statement.

Definitely please elaborate, an example would be appreciated.

And your opinion of the attitude of 'climate change' disagree'ers?


Regarding the accusation of 'personal gain', and how can I not assume this is what you're stating, then I then assume that you believe in the 'profession-wide hoax so we can score the big bucks' hypothesis. Wow, yes I find this unbelievable, that a person who so eloquently expresses him/her self can actually 'fall' for this. Yes this is what I think.

Have you investigated the prominent 'disagree'ers', individuals and groups, backgrounds. Yes this is a question not an accusatory remark. Petro-chemical corporation connections.

Yes not strictly but I get your drift. Yes I shouldn't have used that analogy. 'Flat-earthers' and 'Young-earth creationists' are in a class of their own, completely rejecting fact, whereas 'disagree'ers' are, in the opinion of 97 % of active climate scientists, are putting a 'spin' on readily available data.

Again please where are you?

A bit of a straw man (but not strictly) also.

But we may be able to, as was done with the aerosols post WWII

Am I assuming wrongly that your claiming solar activity is responsible for the 'hockey stick'? Cause if you are, I'm assuming you haven't read certain articles (peer reviewed journal articles) and I'll chase them up for you, if you like.
mark

 

It seems to me that there are actually three views on global warming.

1. the 'believers'
2. the 'skeptics'
3. everyone else who sits in the middle scratching their heads trying to work out who to believe

I think that those in number 3 represent the silent majority. Mums, dads, kids and the like who would genuinely like to do the right thing for the planet and future generations to come, but at the same time fear that potentially unnecessary carbon taxation may destroy economies, jobs, and quality of life.

Who to believe?

12 months ago the 'believers' were in the ascendency. No one dared question the 'truth'. Now there have been a few issues that have come to light that make a lot of people wonder if this just Y2K all over again.

I am sure no-one besides a few hard headed oil company executives with billion dollar fortunes would think that pollution is a good thing. I think all 3 groups would agree that a move to more environmentally friendly energy production methods is desirable - sooner rather than later. Chopping down rainforests in the Amazon is not cool. Seeing dolphins suffocate on plastic bags is a tres faux pas.

I predict 2010 will see a growing 'skeptic' ascendency. The 'truth' may be still a decade away, if not more.

However, the real loser in this debate has been 'science', which has renewed the art of 'lies, damn lies and statistics' to suit both extremes of the debate.

It would be nice to know the correct answer now before we either ruin the world economy or ruin the planet.

I sit in the number 3 camp, but continue to lean heavily towards health skepticism, given my experiences in dealing with agenda driven bureaucrats and government departments.

LL

 

Lord Mockton refuting Al Gore's climate apocalypse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gfdiq0jbVk

 

Goodaye David, I have to take you up on the use of "refute" as in disprove. He certainly doesn't disprove the 'anthropogenic climate change' hypothesis with this effort.
He begins with the 'big one'. If the deniers have got a valid point, then, on face value, the 'co2 lag behind temperature' would be it …. but …. as Lord Monckton should have known, as it was widely published since at least 2004 (and this video from speech in 2007 apparently), there is a reason for same.
I will 'cut and paste' most of following, haven't got the time to construct myself. From one thread, two replies, from a climate change website.

"The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)
.. the question that comes up most frequently ..: “Doesn’t the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice core record show that temperature drives CO2, not the other way round?”
On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable question. It is no surprise that it comes up because it is one of the most popular claims made by the global warming deniers. ….
.. Gore is not wrong at all. This subject has been very well addressed in numerous places. …
(co2 lagging occurs) … is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales.
On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn’t really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. …
Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) …, they say that:
changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing
What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth’s wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the “carbon pump” (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean….
In summary, the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what Gore says in the film. Indeed, Gore could have used the ice core data to make an additional and stronger point, which is that these data provide a nice independent test of climate sensitivity, which gives a result in excellent agreement with results from models.
… In any case, more relevant is that CO2 has not gone above about 290 ppm any time in the last 650,000 years (at least), until the most recent increase, which is unequivocally due to human activities."


"The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis [this really should say "theory" -- eric], which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.
But do not make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2 concentration. I know it is intellectually satisfying to identify a single cause for some observed phenomenon, but that unfortunately is not the way Nature works much of the time.
Nor is there any requirement that a single cause operate throughout the entire 5000 – year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends.
Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.…
The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.
So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations. This hypothesis … refined by Milankovitch in the 1940s…
The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.
The response time of methane and nitrous oxide to climate variations is measured in decades. So these feedbacks operate much faster.
The quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2’s warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC’s projections of future warming of 3±1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. So there is no inconsistency between Milankovitch and current global warming."

couldn't get the references for the following specific sites, i'll try and get a transcript and look them up, all the best, mark

 

To continue, I had to watch a youtube of “the inconvenient truth” as i haven’t watched it before, and i wanted to make sure what Lord Monckton (LM) was claiming was correct.

Regarding the most important LM claim the ALLEGED “Gore Error No. 1”
Gore .. “...The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside....”
LM .. “....what he’s trying to do there is suggest that in the former climate when we weren’t adding co2 to the atmosphere it was the co2 that was changing and that was causing the changes in temperature that led to the beginning and ending of the ice ages, that’s the order of precedence that he gives ... “
Me..YEAH THAT’S WHY HE PRECEDED IT WITH ‘THE RELATIONSHIP IS COMPLICATED”. Gore’s target audience is the great unknowing, he’s trying to ‘kick start’ them not confuse them entirely!
LM then continues “it is almost unanimous in the scientific peer review literature that that is not the case” Me..Bull**** ! what is in the peer reviewed literature is that there definitely was a lag, but the peer reviewed literature also explain how the mechanism occurs!!!!!!!!! They do NOT say that CO2 does not cause warming!

From the last post which hopefully explained the time lag, a summary of the historical data, would be “In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway”
Whereas the ‘hockey stick’ anthopogenic CO2 atmospheric increases, since the industrial revolution, have preceded the temperature increases, ie they have ‘initiated’ the warming! Lord Monckton doesn’t show these data conveniently but later accuses Gore of ‘selective’ data use!
more to come, mark

 

“Gore Error No.2”
A very recent article which would support the claim of reduced number of ‘Atlantic hurricanes’, is discussed here in a climate change forum (ccf) http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...imate-change-and-tropical-cyclones-yet-again/
In the comments, the authors of the original article reply to questions posed by the reviewers and commenters. Their last paragraph states...
“Turning to very important question of the frequency of the strongest storms, it is entirely possible that a large increase in category 4-5 storms will result from increasing greenhouse gases, despite an overall reduction in hurricane numbers. Our model adds little new information on this question because of its failure to simulate these very strong storms.”

From another article in the same ccf, “The bottom line conclusion has consistently remained that, while our knowledge of likely future changes in hurricanes or tropical cyclones (TCs) remains an uncertain area of science, the observed relationship between increased intensity of TCs and rising ocean temperatures appears to be robust, so LM was talking frequency whereas Gore was on about magnitude!, mark

 

Fascinating thread and Mark I will respond soon, sorry for the delay. I have a few points of interest to add but need to collect my thoughts, especially since you have raised very interesting points and put a real effort into your responses.

 

The university at the center of the climate change scandal over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

The University of East Anglia breached Britain's Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.

The Information Commissioner's Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times of London has learned. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.

The stolen e-mails, revealed on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, showed how the university's Climatic Research Unit attempted to thwart requests for scientific data and other information, and suggest that senior figures at the university were involved in decisions to refuse the requests. It is not known who stole the e-mails.

Professor Phil Jones, the unit's director, stood down while an inquiry took place. The ICO's decision could make it difficult for him to resume his post.

Details of the breach emerged the day after John Beddington, the Chief Scientific Adviser, warned that there was an urgent need for more honesty about the uncertainty of some predictions. His intervention followed admissions from scientists that the rate of glacial melt in the Himalayas had been grossly exaggerated.

In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

(times of London)

 

This also is breaking news today...I'll be interested in hearing further explanation:

"New Delhi: RK Pachauri-led Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has landed in yet another controversy over its report that 40 per cent of the Brazilian rainforest in Amazon is threatened by climate change.

UK's newspaper Telegraph has reported the IPCC did not even research the claim themselves, merely lifting the report from the World Wildlife Fund.

The daily also claims that the report was written not by rainforest specialists, but a policy analyst and a journalist.

The UN climate body has already courted controversy over wrong claims made in its reports on the melting of Himalayan glaciers and linking floods and hurricanes to climate change.

IPCC had claimed that all Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035."

It also seems the WWF report from which this was plucked was primarily about over-logging and not even necessarily addressing the climate change issue.

 

Article worthy of perusal by James Hansen et al
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf
I didn't realise there had been some extra posts. will try to reply tonight, mark