BBC site - global warming - add your comments!
Discussion
I am not convinced by the vast majority of global warming arguements. As a lifelong amateur geologist I never have been.
However, I also think that anyone who denies that mankind has been having a negative effect on the environment is an idiot.
The truth is somewhere between the two.
Cars are not the enemy, but unclean fossil fuel technologies are a major problem, particularly in the developing world. Bear in mind that modern cars are much cleaner and more efficient than those of 20yrs ago, and this positive devleopment would not have happened without environmental pressure.
However, I also think that anyone who denies that mankind has been having a negative effect on the environment is an idiot.
The truth is somewhere between the two.
Cars are not the enemy, but unclean fossil fuel technologies are a major problem, particularly in the developing world. Bear in mind that modern cars are much cleaner and more efficient than those of 20yrs ago, and this positive devleopment would not have happened without environmental pressure.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
calling alexkp You're right that mankind has an impact on all local environments, so does every organism, but this is about man-made global warming - which does not exist. Outside of flawed computer models, there simply is no evidence for it.
Here's just two of many peer-reviewed science paper conclusions that greens and politicians deliberately ignore. Try this where Dr K Lassen of the Danish Meteorological Institute lets rip in the on-line version of his paper "Long-term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate" that (it's in the Conclusion just below the Abstract)...
Dr K Lassen said:
Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations.
Of course the problem he has is that this is based on real data not flawed computer models so it's not really convincing
The other one I'd indicate is a paper by Caillon et al that shows - like ALL the others with the same focus - how CO2 is an effect, not a prinary cause, of climate change. In their 2003 paper Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science, 299, 1728-1731 the authors show that atmospheric CO2 changes lagged behind temperature shifts by about 1000 years. This finding, in their words, "confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that drives the climatic system". Endgame.
esselte said:
I notice connections being made between recent natural disasters and global warming again. Surely a load of old bollox?
Yep,tsunamis/earthquakes...don't think these are climate related.
I had an argument with someone who was convinced that the earth was warming up and it was having an effect on magma, therefore making earth quakes more likely
I hardly knew where to start, but eventually remembered the old maxim about arguing with an idiot. 
r988 said:Yes, our ally Dr Bjorn Lomborg in his book "Greenies, Oi, Stop Telling Porkies" pointed out that London has better air quality now than it has experienced for 400 years.
Wasn't the air quality much worse centuries ago due to lots of people with wood fires and so on.
esselte said:They're not, tectonic activity is falling as the interior of the planet cools down. The insides are hotter than the outsides and the notion that an atmospheric change will have any influence below the crust and into the mantle is indeed so funny that it's not worth arguing with people who believe it. They will accept anything that aligns with their prejudices as an article of faith - such 'true believers' are best avoided as suggested by WW but sadly they're widespread due to the powerful propaganda from green groups and mankind's over-active guilt glands.
I notice connections being made between recent natural disasters and global warming again. Surely a load of old bollox?
Trouble is, one of the past IPCC gurus is a UK scientist with reasonably good credentials who's also quite theological, well past the spiritual fruits phase and into the religious nuts zone. He talks about global warming in religious terms and gives the impression that extreme weather is really a vengeful god at work, while Al Gore is practically on his knees worshipping gaia. These are our political and scientific leaders, folks. If you aren't worried now, you should be.
timmy30 said:Couldn't not comment on this. Yes! And the fact that, in order not to disturb the ecosystem of the lesser spiralled mudplugger snail, riverbeds aren't dredged as much or at all, so they're sometimes several feet higher in places. Of course this means less capacity for runoff rainfall and...it's you running that MR2 wot dunnit so just pay more tax and we'll all be OK
For the past 5 years or so Prescott has been busy approving housing developments on flood planes in the UK...... now when these flood planes erm flood.... what do you think there going to blame it on? 2 Jags being incompetant or.....Global Warming.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Monday 10th October 17:04
turbobloke said:
Here's just two of many peer-reviewed science paper conclusions that greens and politicians deliberately ignore. Try this where Dr K Lassen of the Danish Meteorological Institute lets rip in the on-line version of his paper "Long-term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate" that (it's in the Conclusion just below the Abstract)...Dr K Lassen said:
Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations.
Of course the problem he has is that this is based on real data not flawed computer models so it's not really convincing
.
Far from it, Lassens work is debunked here
www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf
wolves_wanderer said:
ge2 said:
I notice connections being made between recent natural disasters and global warming again. Surely a load of old bollox?
Yep,tsunamis/earthquakes...don't think these are climate related.
I had an argument with someone who was convinced that the earth was warming up and it was having an effect on magma, therefore making earth quakes more likely
Ah, yes - a fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer e.g. "Why? How do you know? Are you sure?" etc. etc....
I find the debate about global warming/climate change really interesting, and a sign of our "chattering class" interest in pseudo-scientific spin placed on alarmist ideas, rather than the science itself. Much the same with food scares, the decline in sperm counts (I mean numbers of sperm counted in samples, not the lack of samples
) and even the "Nuclear Power? - no thanks" mentality. There is a danger that "pop" science dilutes the evidence base, in an attempt to make the debate accessible to the lowest common denominator, and in doing so clouds the evidence to such an extent that maningful debate at a popular level becomes impossible and even counter-productive. Sadly the hype has overtaken the truth, and now "climate change" has become accepted dogma without ever passing through the minds of the dogmatic ("DogmaticA brand ofwashing machine used to bleach clarity into an argument by rinsing away counter-arguments to the proposed thought"
Basically we're paying the price for poor education. People don't understand science so they turn to myth and superstition. QV Moon Landing Hoax - we don't understand the science, therefore it cannot have happened.
Having said that I still think that we should as far as sensibly possible reduce the amount of crap we pump into the atmosphere.
Having said that I still think that we should as far as sensibly possible reduce the amount of crap we pump into the atmosphere.
GMan 2112 said:Eos? What on earth is that? It doesn't have the look of a peer-reviewed scientific journal, the website it related to looks little more than a blog for true believer scientists, allegedly the best scientits money can buy.
Far from it, Lassens work is debunked here...
There's too much bull in the debunking you quote to debunk the lot of it. Suffice to say that at the bitter end there's a graph which quotes Mann et al as a credible source of data to 'prove' that solar forcing on climate doesn't work, arguing that Mann's almost flat temperature plot which suddenly shoots up post-industrialisation is THE match for the data. Ooops.
This is the Mann that seems unwilling to reveal the full data sets he uses to produce his infamous 'hockey stick' temperature trend, based on biological proxy indicators, nor the full methodology used to derive that graph from the data. Selectivity appears to be a problem. Mann's plot of temperature seems to suggest that the medieval climate optimum and the 17th / 18th century little ice age never existed, yet both are well documented in both scientific literature and contemporaneous social commentary. If you like web debunkings, Mann is comprehensively buried here and here
There's graph at the end of the 'paper' you cite that has a key statement in its caption that reveals the total lack of credibility in the contents of this 'paper'. It states that over the last 12,000 years there should have been 11 global warming events linked to a solar cycle called the Gleissberg Cycle, whereas in fact we are told that "the current event is unique and obviously of anthropogenic origin".
Obviously not.
The Gleissberg Cycle does correlate with climate extrema, but the criteria are not as simple as the Eos text suggests. There is a very strong correlation, ignored by Eos, when two successive Gleissberg extrema penetrate a threshold level. Looking at a single maximum or minimum isn't revealing, which is presumably why Eos's authors do it that way. The devil is in the detail. Enthusiasts might like to see the abstract of a paper published in 'Energy and Environment' here Enough to say this offers an interesting test of several theories.
As for one climate maximum within the past 12,000 years, i.e. now and caused by us, this graph - reproduced on the ABD site but from an IPCC Report of all places - shows that Eos's authors are talking absolute nonsense. Take a look - if you can see more than one period of warming here in the last 12,000 years, the Eos 'paper' quoted by GMan 2112 says they don't exist. D'oh. I can see four and the current one isn't the warmest.
Let's also take a look at the IPCC's 'Kyoto' forecast for more recent times, versus reality. Oh dear, the IPCC seem to have got it a teensy weensy bit wrong. But hey the expensive computer models are - er - expensive and they justify extortionate tax hikes on fuel duty and industrial power supply, so let's not quibble over real data
The Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age are here, the Mann research and Eos tries to wipe them off the record. Too late and too silly.
Now I need a cuppa and the global warming true believers need a better education as yertis points out.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Monday 10th October 18:39
turbobloke said:
Having said that I still think that we should as far as sensibly possible reduce the amount of crap we pump into the atmosphere.
Fair point, who could disagree - but define crap. Carbon dioxide is plant and crop food.
Come on - you and I have had this out before... we don't don't pump out neat CO2 - we discharge a cocktail of chemicals and particles. Here's an example of why I don't like it - back in the summer I was sat in the garden staring up into the clear sky. We live under a flight path - in the space about half an hour the sky above became roughly half clouded over, not with clouds, but with contrails from airliners.
I respect the science that says global warming is not man made, but at the same time can see no reason why we should say " oh that's alright then", and possibly exacerbate it.
Driving over the Chilterns last Monday, the sky above London looked like a sickening gaseous cess-pool.
turbobloke said:
The other one I'd indicate is a paper by Caillon et al that shows - like ALL the others with the same focus - how CO2 is an effect, not a prinary cause, of climate change. In their 2003 paper Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science, 299, 1728-1731 the authors show that atmospheric CO2 changes lagged behind temperature shifts by about 1000 years. This finding, in their words, "confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that drives the climatic system". Endgame.
Surely all this confirms is that CO2 emission from natural sources has not been a forcing mechanism in the past. It doesn't rule out the possibility of large CO2 emissions from some other source acting as a forcing mechanism now/in the future.
(Also, that bald conclusion doesn't address whether raised CO2 levels have acted to maintain raised temperatures once the increased natural emissions kick in.)
(I posted this on another thread a few weeks back, but could not subsequently find the thread again, so I'm sorry if I'm getting you to reply twice.)
Pigeon said:No worries about the multiple threads thing. In reply to your point, I'd say three things. One, if there have been CO2 levels in the past 18 times higher then now - and there have - then we'd have met our Thermal Armageddon long ago, by initial forcing or feedback loop. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now, since the physical mechanisms available in our planet's coupled ocean-atmosphere system then, are still available, now (or not). Not seems to be it. Two, the maximum warming from CO2 is about one degree C. Enhanced warming depends on a distribution of water vapour in the atmosphere that doesn't exist. Three, mankind's emission of CO2 is so small at 3.5% of total annually cycled gas that if we stopped ALL of it we would barely notice the difference in atmospheric levels, it would be of the same level as seasonal variarion i.e. very small but measurable. If the seasons can tip us into problems then we have, er, problems. Yet we've had seasons every year for as long as. If we removed all cars from the face of the planet there would be no measurable CO2 shift directly attributable to that policy.
Surely all this confirms is that CO2 emission from natural sources has not been a forcing mechanism in the past. It doesn't rule out the possibility of large CO2 emissions from some other source acting as a forcing mechanism now/in the future.
Yertis, it's not personal with me. I don't want a filthy littered world or choking air for my kids. That said the air in our homes is on average ten times more polluted than city smog yet nobody cares about that. My beef is with man-made global warming, which doesn't exist, and with the anti-car brigade who think that cars matter when they're a non-part of a non-problem - and no amount of angst over particulates from buses or heavy metals in water supplies or plastic bags in gutters will change that.
andy mac said:
I honestly think Global warming is a load of tosh. I mean, if it was that bad, would I need to sit here is a bloody jumper, and big warm homer simpson slippers?
OK. But it may well be about to get a lot cooler. That Gleissberg Cycle link that GMan 2112's source decried - but actually works when the correct criterion is applied - predicts a return to the mini ice age conditions at about 2030. We're talking about winters where the River Thames would freeze to a depth of several metres. This is clearly contrary to the IPCC's computers and their love affair with man-made carbon dioxide - however, unlike computer model algorithms, observations of the sun and thermometer readings are a bit more difficult to fudge, but either way I wouldn't put your damart away just yet. Imagine - all those tree huggers who predicted an ice age in the seventies, then switched to global warming in the eighties when the tax take and control opportunities became clear, will now have to say "Hang on a minute, when we said warming, what we meant was..."
Anyway if anyone here is around on PH in 2030, you'll either have molten computer plastic dripping on your lap, or the keyboard will shatter as your blue fingers shake and rattle out a post on the insulating properties of canvass knickers / boxers. Wonderful
Oh, take a look at the comments that our wonderful Biased Broadcasting Corporation have selected to add to the article. Toads.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff