Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Mansell90 said:
Worst case scenario, global warming doesn't exist at all, it was all a hoax, we spent a bit of money on developing new energy sources and making our energy use more efficient... is that so bad?
The worst case scenario of doing something when nothing needed doing is significantly worse than your portrayal, which is insultingly naive or willfully dishonest.Current outcomes of policy:
- excess winter deaths due to fuel poverty
- starvation in developing nations as a direct result of EU policy on bio-fuels
- destruction of rain forest at an unprecedented rate for the bio fuel market
- guarantee of poverty in the third-world killing millions annually
Blib said:
Mansell90 you disappoint me. I headed over to this thread hoping to see some firm evidence. All we get is more of the same woolly-minded guff.
Same here, no science, no data; the same (very) old regurgitated political diarrhoea from someone with an opinion, who reads the Grauniad and believes every word. Pathetic really....Bacardi said:
Blib said:
Mansell90 you disappoint me. I headed over to this thread hoping to see some firm evidence. All we get is more of the same woolly-minded guff.
Same here, no science, no data; the same (very) old regurgitated political diarrhoea from someone with an opinion, who reads the Grauniad and believes every word. Pathetic really....The chances of anybody coming up with anything new are remote to nonexistent,
Perhaps its time for a new thread, MMGW the method of controlling people via guilt .
Mansell90 said:
Globs said:
Right then Nigel, please post your proof of man made CO2 causing planet heating here 
AGW is a settled consensus science so it should just take a few lines, then we can look at each link in greater detail.
Perhaps you can also explain why there hasn't been any warming for a couple of decades in the face of huge increases in CO2 while you are at it?
Ok, just to preface, I certainly wouldn't personally claim to have proof! Nor do I think there is irrefutable proof personally. I do think (as I am sure you are aware from the goading) that the hypothesis of a partially man made de-stabalising of the climate is more likely than to say we are having no effect. AGW is a settled consensus science so it should just take a few lines, then we can look at each link in greater detail.
Perhaps you can also explain why there hasn't been any warming for a couple of decades in the face of huge increases in CO2 while you are at it?
This is the way the chain of events works in my head -
Firstly of course we have the diversion of the normal carbon cycle from the course it has been taking for the past hundreds of thousands of years. I'm aware this has probably been widely discussed already, and debunked I am sure so feel free to explain why that was to me.
There is nothing special about us burning stuff - look at the CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years too (Vostok)
Mansell90 said:
Secondly the temperature (up until the past 20 years admittedly) rose in line with this increase in CO2 levels. Common sense tells me that the past 20 years is likely a blip and that given all the preceding data, which was over a significantly longer period of time, the upward trend is more than likely to continue.
This has happened many times before: Look at Vostok. Given the preceding 400,000 years the last 140 years is not tell us anything of significance.Mansell90 said:
In addition to this surface temperature, upon which the 20 year flat-lining argument is based, is not the most reliable way of measuring the overall temperature of the planet. Much more representative are sea temperatures (there's a lot more water after all) and conveniently water acts like a planetary thermometer, and sea levels are rising, that indicates the planetary temperature is rising.
Arguments over localised temperatures over recent winters such as saying how much snow we have had do seem a little bizarre to me as I don't really see how that represents the bigger picture at all.
The bigger picture is that snow can only form in an atmosphere of 0C or less, freezing point is an absolute guide. When we get this much snow we much therefore conclude that the air temperature is NOT unusually warm because frankly 0 degrees C isn't.Arguments over localised temperatures over recent winters such as saying how much snow we have had do seem a little bizarre to me as I don't really see how that represents the bigger picture at all.
NH air temperatures this winter we as cold as they have been for many decades: the proof is widespread snow formation, only possible below 0C.
Mansell90 said:
Furthermore, it is generally believed that the sharp increase in CO2 will have an effect upon the climate in some way,
The simplistic greenhouse gas maths that the IPCC us predicts a 1 degree C rise for a doubling of CO2.This rises to 3C with 'positive feedback' which was guessed at by the IPCC, and incorporated into the models.
This was falsified by NASA when they discovered that the water vapour concentration at middle and high latitudes has actually been falling since about 2005 (IIRC).
Therefore we are looking at less than 1C if we get a doubling of CO2 (which of course we are not). In reality the maximum theoretical warming could be up to 0.2C I'd say, which is in the region of 'nothing at all'.
Mansell90 said:
with the data gathered thus far, it believes a temperature increase.
The raw temperature data in places like boulder etc show no rise at all.The rest has been mangled and fiddled, but again shows precious little warming.
No where is there a connection between rising CO2 causing rising temperatures. Nowhere.
Mansell90 said:
As the models (that I know you all hate) take into account the new data, they will adapt and slowly over time be able to give us more accurate predictions.
Yes I do hate climate models. I have in fact written simulators and know how they behave. Climate models model the wrong thing and simply say whatever 'CO2 sensitivity' is fed in. The data and models are hidden from inspection so no one can check them, but by definition are not evidence merely an opinion.The best model is planet earth, and that has clearly said that if you continue raising CO2 temperature will not follow it : an 8% increase in the past 2 decades has led to a zero degree rise.
Mansell90 said:
I guess the point is that by not acting at all we are taking a huge risk, as we quite simply cannot say for certain the effect we will have long term.
The huge risk of being slightly warmer? People in the Medieval Warming Period did very well thanks, so that's the huge risk Gone.Simply saying you can't say what will happen is bunk, the MWP shows us what happens. If you don't know try reading some history.
Then there is the acting, you have spend over a trillion dollars on this for the past 20 years and CO2 production has risen 8%.
Mansell90 said:
Besides that, I don't see developing new sustainable energy sources as a bad thing.
Spending billions of pounds on subsidising useless wind subsidy farms and solar cells is not developing new sustainable sources. The only truly sustainable source appears to be oil and coal at the moment TBH. One the subsidies are shut off the non sustainable 'green' 'sources' will stop dead. Mansell90 said:
Fossil fuels will invariably become more expensive to find and extract, so at some point we will have to develop this technology anyway, is our country being one of the fore-runners in that development a bad thing?
We are not a forerunner, the US is with Shale Gas. Propagating a lie about CO2 is NOT the best route to getting new energy sources, it's a particularly poor way because billions of pounds are spend trashing the scientific method and taking money away from real research.Mansell90 said:
Worst case scenario, global warming doesn't exist at all, it was all a hoax, we spent a bit of money on developing new energy sources and making our energy use more efficient... is that so bad?
The worst case scenario is already here:1) Wind subsidy farms creating fuel poverty and blighting people's lives who live near them.
2) Science being trashed - the AGW scam has been VERY damaging to real science and research
3) Tens of thousands of winter deaths each year.
4) A big reduction in the standard of living.
Anyway this is a political list, show us some evidence of man made CO2 causing warming, and explain the past 20 years pause in warming.
You should know these answers - so tell me.
Guam said:
Interesting piece on Greenland H/t to a watts poster (calen IIRC)
“For the Vatnaverfi district of the Eastern Settlement it is estimated that 100.000 sheep and goats may have been pastured at the height of the Norse period (Jacobsen 1987). The resources these animals required included about 700.000.000 kg of hay and between 36.500.000 to 73.000.000 litres of water annualy or 1.917.808 kg of fodder and 100.000 to 200.000 litres of water daily.”
(And that quote doesn’t even mention the 2000 cows, which are not as tough as sheep from Iceland.)
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/...
No goat eats 7 tonnes of hay a year. About 3kg a day would be reasonable.“For the Vatnaverfi district of the Eastern Settlement it is estimated that 100.000 sheep and goats may have been pastured at the height of the Norse period (Jacobsen 1987). The resources these animals required included about 700.000.000 kg of hay and between 36.500.000 to 73.000.000 litres of water annualy or 1.917.808 kg of fodder and 100.000 to 200.000 litres of water daily.”
(And that quote doesn’t even mention the 2000 cows, which are not as tough as sheep from Iceland.)
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/...
Hmm. Science or Politics? Science or Politics?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22283...
Guy Stewart Callendar. Apparently the bloke who "discovered" Global Warming. A steam engineer by trade apparently, who thought warming woould be a god thing.
I rather liked this quote from near the end of the piece.
"Although Callendar's estimates on global warming were quite simple, Dr Hawkins said they had proved fairly accurate compared with modern analysis."
What Dr. Hawkins seems to be saying is that the modern model analysis really is very poor indeed.
Now there is a surprise.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22283...
Guy Stewart Callendar. Apparently the bloke who "discovered" Global Warming. A steam engineer by trade apparently, who thought warming woould be a god thing.
I rather liked this quote from near the end of the piece.
"Although Callendar's estimates on global warming were quite simple, Dr Hawkins said they had proved fairly accurate compared with modern analysis."
What Dr. Hawkins seems to be saying is that the modern model analysis really is very poor indeed.
Now there is a surprise.
Thought this article on The Reg' was very interesting:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/08/ipcc_vs_ho...
Still trying to hide the data.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/08/ipcc_vs_ho...
Still trying to hide the data.
Article on sunspots
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2253...
Dr Robert Massey, from the UK's Royal Astronomical Society, told the BBC: "What's interesting about these events is that you have them in quick succession.
"It really does say that we're approaching this 11-year peak. We can't say exactly when it's going to happen, you can only work it out retrospectively."
Perhaps they just need a bigger computer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2253...
Dr Robert Massey, from the UK's Royal Astronomical Society, told the BBC: "What's interesting about these events is that you have them in quick succession.
"It really does say that we're approaching this 11-year peak. We can't say exactly when it's going to happen, you can only work it out retrospectively."
Perhaps they just need a bigger computer
alock said:
simoid said:
Been having a look for some peer-reviewed papers that say climate change isn't man-made but I'm struggling to find any.
Can anyone help?
I've been looking for some peer-reviewed papers that say the tooth fairy doesn't exist but I'm struggling to find any.Can anyone help?
Can you help?
Isn't there debate about the former, though?
simoid said:
alock said:
simoid said:
Been having a look for some peer-reviewed papers that say climate change isn't man-made but I'm struggling to find any.
Can anyone help?
I've been looking for some peer-reviewed papers that say the tooth fairy doesn't exist but I'm struggling to find any.Can anyone help?
Can you help?
Isn't there debate about the former, though?
www.pistonheads.com/does-the-tooth-fairy-exist
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff