What global warming?

[Dawg]

ffs - WEATHER ISN"T CLIMATE.

Abso-fword-lutely!
Now, who is going to tell all the twots at the BBC, the print meeja etc that every change in the weather is not proof of AGW?
Or do we want it both ways...Weather isn't Climate unless it fits the prevailing conditions....?

 

[Exemplas]

Global Warming or not. It seems sensible, through technological development, to become more efficient in our energy usage. It means our personal costs will be lower in the long term and all fuel streams will last longer.

Hear hear!

 

[garethkane]

A lot of columnists quote Piers Corbyn, a climate "sceptic" who runs a business predicting extreme weather events - with a good reputation for getting it right, although the only rigorous check on this was done in 2001.

I thought I'd check out Mr Corbyn's claims on climate. Amid all the bad tempered ranting on his website, I found the claim dated 2008 "The world is cooling and will continue to do so". Since he said that, temperatures have risen to an all time high as per the predictions of mainstream science. So, the only prediction I could find and it is clearly wrong.

Exactly the same happens when you look at the claims of Delingpole, Booker, Monckton and the rest - cherrypicking, distortions and fabrications - yet they blunder on regardless.

Here's my take on why.

 

[spreadsheetsdirect]

It's far better for politicians & media to say climate change instead of global warming now as it allows any extreme weather to be linked to it. The climate has always changed throughout the billions of years Earth has been around. If it hadn't we wouldn't be here now.

 

[skiesnpies]

As the man said in "American Beauty" - never underestimate the power of denial.
We are living beyond our means environmentally and there are tough challenges ahead climate change or not. People don't want to confront that naturally as it means tough decisions.
Climate change is a science, like any other science. People put forward theories for others to consider. With the theory of climate change, almost all scientists who have looked in any detail believe the theory to be sound (remember evolution is just a theory , relativity is just a theory). What the media fail to report (as they like to put both sides) is that those that look into it properly and study it, almost all fall on the side of "it is happening". Of course, some don't agree, and of course some findings are wrong or turn out untrue, but the bulk of the data suggests it is here, it is man made and it is getting worse.
I just love the posters who say "I haven't used my BBQ so its not happening" and "we had the coldest winter in Devon last year so it can't be true" - that isn't science

 

I just love the posters who say "I haven't used my BBQ so its not happening" and "we had the coldest winter in Devon last year so it can't be true" - that isn't science

Of course not its FACT.

Earl

 

[skiesnpies]

If I had the time, I would like to compile all such posts / comments together, my father in law says stuff like this all the time, as though his one man study of his garden in some way carries more weight than all other studies. A jolly good wheeze if it wasn't so worrying.

 

[jostar]

It's hard to know what to believe, but you can't deny that pouring so much crap into the atmosphere isn't going to do harm, no matter how they dress it up.

 

[skiesnpies]

They way I see it :
1) CO2 is an insulating gas, provable in a junior school science project
2) We have released measurable amounts of CO2 by burning fossil fuels, the quantity of which you can calculate in a high school maths lesson.
3) We know the size of the atmosphere
4) Therefore we know as a percentage, how much more CO2 we should have

AND
5) We can measure the CO2 increase very accurately - and it IS on the increase at a rate greater than at any time in earths history.

Currently we are fairly sure a chunk was absorbed by the sea, as the sea is becoming more acidic and the amount we expect to find - that we KNOW we released, isn't there. The sea is saturating though (again you can demonstrate this easily in a school lab), so we should expect to see CO2 levels rising more quickly ongoing.

By far the majority of science papers out there conclude the same thing, the deniers cling to tiny bits of obscure contrary evidence and bang on and on about it, ignoring the bulk of the evidence altogether. Its like the moon landings being a hoax, they cling to scraps of "evidence" and totally miss the bigger picture (like that the Russians were watching very very closely).

Of course, there will always exceptions and queries, but in science, it is the wealth of data which is used, not odd exceptions.

I have never met a "denier" with a really credible argument, just a bunch of people with a good reason to find a way of avoiding the truth.

Chosen Charity:
www.HeartOfEnglandForest.com

 

AND
5) We can measure the CO2 increase very accurately - and it IS on the increase at a rate greater than at any time in earths history.

http://www.HeartOfEnglandForest.com

So what is it as a percentage of the Earths atmosphere and how does that compare with the fireworks of WW2.?

Earl

 

[skiesnpies]

389 parts per million currently.

They only started yearly records in 1955 - before that figures are more spaced apart so the direct impact in WW2 is hard to say. I realise a lot happened, but I can't imagine somehow that it would have the same impact as all of the coal and oil burned since the industrial revolution???

 

[skiesnpies]

Incidentally, atmospheric CO2 concentrations went up 0.6% in the last 12 months alone and 18% in the last 50 years.

Concentrations measured from ice cores (a controversial way to measure initially but now fairly well respected as accurate) prior to this were stable at about 280ppm for the last 1,000 years or so and then started to rise from about 1750.

Yes volcano's and one off events cause blips and the odd unexplained downward curve for a year or two, but otherwise it has been a fairly steady increase year on year for 250 years - and its hard to argue that a very clear increase year on year that has shown an overall increase of 28% is down to chance numbers. If it was 0.5%, fair enough, but 28% ????

Lots of scientific (peer reviewed) research papers here on ancient CO2 level measurements, how they measured and how they compare to other trends. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm.

Earth has had higher levels of CO2 concentrations in the past, but it also had MUCH higher average global temperatures - ie. that could be what we are re-creating!

 

[skiesnpies]

oh and another thing (this is like having a row with my wife hee hee)
the highest recorded CO2 level for the last 1/2 million years is about 280.
So for 450,000 years, it fluctuated up and down a bit through ice ages etc, topping out at 280 on a half dozen occasions, and then in 250 years it goes to 389 - just coincidentally at the same time as we industrialise a huge growing population?

Can't possibly be us can it ?

Oh, and you never clean up after yourself either - oh hang on, wrong argument

 

389 parts per million currently.

They only started yearly records in 1955 - before that figures are more spaced apart so the direct impact in WW2 is hard to say.

Have you spoken to the Mayor of Hiroshima.?:|

Earl

 

[dagr]

The acceptable face of governmental encroachment on free speech?

 

[JHSameday]

We are in the middle of the coldest winter on record so tell me about global warming again...............:|:|:|

 

[skiesnpies]

We are in the middle of the coldest winter on record so tell me about global warming again...............:|:|:|

Yawn / Troll!
See above for details.

 

[dagr]

We are in the middle of the coldest winter on record so tell me about global warming again...............:|:|:|

That would have made sense if you had left out the word "global".

December 2010 was actually quite a warm month, although the coolest December since the year 2000.

I think 2010 was one of the warmest year's ever (globally).

 

[Dawg]

Yawn / Troll!
See above for details.

Nice. You are of course part of the charidee sector, and in the part with a specific interest in this, no? As in being paid?
Good impartial advice from a warmist paid to beat the warmist drum.
Yawn/Crusty.

 

[skiesnpies]

Yes, you are quite correct, the fact that I feed myself by having a job makes the science all complete nonsense. In fact, while I was studying this topic for my Msc (while not being paid) I deliberately mis-read all the scientific research just in case. You have completely busted my credibility.

Where as you are an independent researcher with no job, who has looked outside and said "its cold today" therefore there is nothing to this theory. Yep, credibility by the bucket load.

Unless you can take some sort of scientific stand point and put some evidence on the table, this just becomes a pub argument with stuff that can just be made up, and I don't really want to take part in that kind of thing. Note, I am happy to reference all the stuff about I quoted.

 

[Dawg]

Yes, you are quite correct, the fact that I feed myself by having a job makes the science all complete nonsense. In fact, while I was studying this topic for my Msc (while not being paid) I deliberately mis-read all the scientific research just in case. You have completely busted my credibility.

Where as you are an independent researcher with no job, who has looked outside and said "its cold today" therefore there is nothing to this theory. Yep, credibility by the bucket load.

Unless you can take some sort of scientific stand point and put some evidence on the table, this just becomes a pub argument with stuff that can just be made up, and I don't really want to take part in that kind of thing. Note, I am happy to reference all the stuff about I quoted.

I love people who mention they have degrees. They must be sooo clever. Was your MSc in Metallurgy? Leaden sarcasm? Or Toy throwing, Prams out of?

I'm sure you can reference bucket loads of stuff. Yippee for you, Google and The Wiki-wonkies. Can you also reference the economic implausibility of much of the proposed solution? I can't, but I know a man who can.

But then, as you say I am a mere unemployed researcher who doffs his cap to a single issue crusty with a , gasp, degree.

 

[skiesnpies]

My degree was in environmental science, specialising in climate change - which was the ONLY reason I mentioned it. I respond to threads like these to try and counter so much BS that is spouted by people who simply know nothing about what they say. I do know, as I took the time to find out.

There is a general perception out there held by a lot of people that climate change is a myth, but this perception is as unfounded as the perception that God made the world in 7 days - but lots of people are fooled into believing it. Anyway thats a whole different issue - which I can't comment on as I am a "single issue crustie".

I am still waiting for some science or evidence by the way, I take it the name calling is a distraction from the fact that you don't have any? Wouldn't it be simpler for you to respond to topics you know nothing about with "I don't know anything about this" and then remain quiet?

 

Yes, you are quite correct, the fact that I feed myself by having a job makes the science all complete nonsense. In fact, while I was studying this topic for my Msc (while not being paid).

So what did you live on.?:|

Earl

 

[skiesnpies]

erm, savings, why?

 

erm, savings, why?

Where did you get the savings from.?:|

Earl

 

[skiesnpies]

LOL, I saved them during 20 years hard work Earl - baffled as to where this one is going but looking forward to finding out

 

[Dawg]

I am still waiting for some science or evidence by the way, I take it the name calling is a distraction from the fact that you don't have any? Wouldn't it be simpler for you to respond to topics you know nothing about with "I don't know anything about this" and then remain quiet?

Science or evidence of what? Did I assert something factual about AGW that you dispute? Nope. I was just making a point about your name calling, dismissing someone as a troll because they didn't have the same understanding as you. Well fie!
And, after 100 pages of a thread, I can't lead it slightly off track by ribbing your missionary zeal, well fie! And Fie again!

Anyway is 'Environmental Science specializing in Climate Change' a real degree? Or one of the one of the ones down the corridor from Golf Bunker Management?

 

[JHSameday]

Global warming ? More like scientific hype...............

 

LOL, I saved them during 20 years hard work Earl - baffled as to where this one is going but looking forward to finding out

Well I reckon you were paid to do your degree by your previous employment.?


Earl

 

[skiesnpies]

Science or evidence of what? Did I assert something factual about AGW that you dispute?

Nope, you are quite correct, I just re-read, you didn't in fact claim anything, my mistake. Your still wrong though
And no, nothing to do with Golf Bunkers, I got my degree in a christmas cracker.....

 

[skiesnpies]

Well I reckon you were paid to do your degree by your previous employment.?


Earl

Dude, thats weird logic, that means if I ever do any work and don't spend 100% of the cash, I am forever being PAID to undertake ANY activity what ever my motives?

 

[victoriaw]

Hear hear!

I agree with you

 

[cjd]

Ah, cheers, I was wondering...all clear now.

 

[StephenW]

Anthony Watts's blog has been voted best science blog in the 2011 "bloggies" Weblog Awards.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/27/wuwt-voted-best-science-blog-in-the-2011-bloggies/

Some other interesting blogs via the links on the bloggies site:
http://2011.bloggi.es/#science

 

[StephenW]

What ever next, a connection between News of the World and Climategate?
Seriously, this is interesting. Relates to the enquires in the UK after CRU e-mails were leaked:


" “Covert” Operations by East Anglia’s CRU

Steve McIntyre, posted on
Jul 14, 2011 at 2:53 PM

Today brings news of the arrest of the managing director of a firm hired by the University of East Anglia’s CRU (Climatic Research Unit) to carry out “covert” operations – h/t reader Chu here). Neil Wallis of Outside Organisation was arrested today in connection with the spreading News of the World scandal. "

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

What ever next, a connection between News of the World and Climategate?
Seriously, this is interesting. Relates to the enquires in the UK after CRU e-mails were leaked:

Well here is a link. Climate change deniers are largely big business, or those that support them, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, so that they can make more money - such as News Corporation. One of the biggest deniers of climate change is Fox News in USA owned by guess who.

Climate change is undoubtedly happening, and the debate should be 'what is causing this?' As far as I can see, there are two schools of thought on this - those who maintain it would happen anyway, irrespective of human behaviour, and those that think it is largely caused by human behaviour. It is so difficult, I have seen no conclusive scientific evidence either way. I do tend to think the latter, without conclusive evidence, because scientists that believe the opposite are largely funded by these so called big businesses, including oil companies, and they are adept at covering up their links to such scientists (how long did News of the World succeed in covering up its misdeanours). Scientists who think the latter are largely funded by Governments, the likes of Greenpeace, etc. and we have seen how businesses such as News Corporation can run rings round them (for many years anyway).

Barrie

 

[Davek0974]

Over the last 3 years we've all experienced significant rapid changes in the the pattern of taxation as well as minimum and maximum climate change levies, leave alone carbon footprints in unexpected places. Agreed that some part of it is natural and expected. But at this rate? Obviously there's profit to be made?

Edited for accuracy

Couldnt help myself :redface:

 

[Cornish Steve]

Since the thread was reopened, let me post the latest in a series of news articles showing that there's been no measurable warming for several years. Plus, what evidence there is appears to contradict theory.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Climate change is undoubtedly happening, and the debate should be 'what is causing this?'

Barrie, you need to keep current in your reading! How can you claim that "climate change" (no longer "global warming", of course ) is "undoubtedly happening"? The most recent evidence is that there is precisely zero warming.

 

[Davek0974]

I never had a doubt that it was ever happening, its just a money making scaremongering tactic used by governments to keep the populous scared of something i.e.under control. Any scientist or expert to say otherwise is rapidly hushed or made out to be a fool.

Sad thing is, what can we do about it?