What global warming?

[prsportslink]

Hi,

Every one to know that sun is the most import to live the all the planet. This planet king is the SUN...........

 

[feeyd]

Could it be just as simply as the Sun getting warmer. As it has done in the past?

I have heard a lot of people say the same thing.

 

[LicensedToTrade]

Hi,

Every one to know that sun is the most import to live the all the planet. This planet king is the SUN...........

The sun isn't a planet mate.

 

[The Ville]

I have heard a lot of people say the same thing.

There are many research papers that show that any fluctuation in the Suns output is a tiny factor in any changes in climate.

You have to go back many millions of years to see any significant change (The faint young Sun).
It was cooler in the past, however there was more CO2. The two balanced each other out, which is why it wasn't significantly hotter when CO2 was higher.

There is also the issue of chemical weathering which acts as a thermostat over the millions of years that the Sun has got hotter.

 

[The Ville]

The earth has been around for millions of years. It has seen many changes in temperatures from one extreme to the other. It is still here.

The earth is big enough to look after itself. Don't let the scare stories get to you.

The earth isn't the issue.

The issue is retaining the environment and climate at a stable condition so that humans and other species can survive.

They aren't scare stories. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you analyse the CO2 molecule, the warming ability is built into its quantum structure.
O2 and Nitrogen are not warming gases because the same basic science means they can not be.

It is basic quantum physics.

 

[The Ville]

Mann = Dr. Michael Mann of the hockey stick

"In papers sent to UVA April 23, Cuccinelli’s office commands the university to produce a sweeping swath of documents relating to Mann’s receipt of nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research conducted while Mann— now director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State— was at UVA between 1999 and 2005.

If Cuccinelli succeeds in finding a smoking gun like the purloined emails that led to the international scandal dubbed Climategate, Cuccinelli could seek the return of all the research money, legal fees, and trebled damages."

And what science will be achieved by a lawyer attacking another scientist?
If you want science then just do it and argue your corner using science.

Lawyers and politicians do not practice science.

 

[The Ville]

Oh and before I forget

Global Warming Lie- by Leah

Apparently because I am new here, I can't post links, so I had to remove the link to your 'article'.

You refer to alleged warming on other planets.

Ask this question of your views:

We have large amounts of instrumentation monitoring climate on earth. Even hundred years ago we had more temperature measuring equipment on this planet than we do today on, or pointing at any of the other planets.

So given this lack of data about Mars or Jupiter, ask yourself why you are happy to believe theories about the climate of Mars, but you have doubts about Earth. It doesn't make sense to place so much faith on a dearth of data from other planets.

So where does this lead us?

Mars: There is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming
Jupiter: It generates more heat internally than it receives from the Sun, any 'climate warming' is due to internal changes.

 

[The Ville]

Without the greenhouse effect, we'd freeze to death every night. It's one of the essential elements of the earth's climate. It's always existed. Saying there's definitely a greenhouse effect that will lead to climate change is like saying there's definitely oxygen in air that will lead to forest fires. The issue at hand is whether mankind is in any way making the effect more or less pronounced, beyond what nature already does - just like changing the percentage of oxygen in air could increase the likelihood of forest fires.

The original commentator stated that there was a greenhouse effect and it will lead to climate change.

The original commentator is correct. I'm not sure why you chose to only comment on the first part of the statement.

 

[The Ville]

I'm not sure that's actually the case, certainly politically them jumping on the bandwagon is very good for them, because it's what the ignorant masses want to see. Financially? Well we'd have to look at the numbers, but there is plenty of extra tax to be taken from all this, for example. In what ways do you think they will be disadvantaged financially...

You seem to be dragging everyone down to the same level.

Amusingly I believe in the US, Mann is being questioned about a whopping huge amount of government money he received to do his research over 5 or 6 years.
What was the total?
Something like $50,000

I would say that is low cost science. It's not exactly going to attract money fanatics who couldn't do the maths in any case!

 

[The Ville]

You're missing an important point. You're assuming that the IPCC is a group of renowned and independent scientists who are looking at the data objectively to predict the likely future of our climate. They are nothing of the sort. This group of scientists and non-scientists was set up with the specific objective of 'proving' that global warming exists and that it is anthropogenic. You accuse me from time to time of confirmation bias, but IPCC is the very epitome of bias. Based on their charter, they discard opposing opinions and, as the leaked emails reveal, do their level best to discredit and push aside data and people that get in their way.

Junk.
The IPPC was set up to collate the science from all the institutions around the world, in order to give an overview of the science.

Most of the science that has been discarded, has been done so because it just does not stand up to detailed scrutiny.

 

[The Ville]

After much thought and careful deliberation it seems certain members have proven the cause of Global warming.

Too much CO2 being exhaled.

Ignoring the apparent jest.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 is largely due to fossil fuels.

It can be shown by analysing the isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Plants prefer C12 to the other common isotope C13.
This means fossil fuels contain more C12 than C13.

And we can analyse the C12/C13 ratio in the atmosphere to show the CO2 increase is due to fossil fuels.
The ratio is also changing in our food, corals, oceans etc.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Junk. The IPPC was set up to collate the science from all the institutions around the world, in order to give an overview of the science.

Would you like a link to prove the point? The IPCC was set up as a political body based on the presumption of anthropogenic global warming. It's their raison d'etre. If you wish to dispute the point, please back it up with references. In this case, if you look into it, you'll find that I'm correct.

Most of the science that has been discarded, has been done so because it just does not stand up to detailed scrutiny.

I used to conduct research with a team of very clever and, in some cases, world-renowned colleagues at a British university. I remember seeing, several years ago, one of the papers they published. The basic premise of the paper was that cause X leads to effect Y. Their starting assumption was that this relationship was directly proportional: Y=aX+b. Indeed, it would be particularly convenient to the then prevalent theory if that were the case. Amusingly, the hard data produced by their experiment revealed a relationship that was inversely proportional: The line went down instead of up. Even more amusingly, none of the peer reviewers spotted this, and the article was published in one of the IEEE journals (if I remember correctly).

What was at fault here? They presumed the answer and tried to fit the facts to align with it. In that case, an answer that was the complete reverse of the prediction slipped through the process. (I spotted it only years later when reviewing some of their work, and I didn't have the heart to point it out - especially since it was an obscure area of an obscure topic in science.) This is no different from the IPCC. They start with an answer - anthropogenic global warming - and they filter everything they see and do with that particular lens. That's why they dismissed justified criticism. That's why so many of their predictions were unfounded. That's why almost every statement in Al Gore's famous documentary has been shown to be false.

It's called confirmation bias. I've been accused of it myself, and to some extent we are all guilty of it. What makes it different in the case of the IPCC is that it's institutionalized, billions of pounds and politicians' careers are resting on it, and careers of some who dared to challenge have been destroyed. In anyone's mind, that ought to raise serious doubts and questions.

 

[Cornish Steve]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you analyse the CO2 molecule, the warming ability is built into its quantum structure.
O2 and Nitrogen are not warming gases because the same basic science means they can not be.

Actually, water vapour is far more important. In comparison, the amount of CO2 we produce has a small effect.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Even hundred years ago we had more temperature measuring equipment on this planet than we do today

Would you care to provide a link to justify this statement?

 

[LicensedToTrade]

Does anyone remember days gone by where the old fashioned people of earth would make a post on a forum, let someone reply, then post another, then someone else would reply...etc.

 

[wordperfect]

Wow!
Really?
How quaint, maybe we should try to restart the practice?

 

[cjd]

It's called confirmation bias. I've been accused of it myself,

You sure have

Interesting article in New Scientist this week called "Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth"

Dan Kahan at Yale Law School has found that people's views on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage predict their position on climate science too. This, he argues, is because social conservatives tend to be pro-business and resist the idea that it is damaging the planet (Nature, vol 436, p 296).

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html?page=2

 

[The Ville]

You sure have

Interesting article in New Scientist this week called "Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth"

There is also an interesting review in the magazine of a book called:

"Nonsense on Stilts: How to tell science from bunk" by Massimo Pigliucci.

 

[The Ville]

Would you care to provide a link to justify this statement?

Erm, I suggest you understand your own software before asking newbies to do something they are prohibited to do!

But in any case no link is needed, unless humanity has overnight colonised Mars or Venus etc.

I think the oneous is on you if you are questioning an obvious fact.

Please state exactly what equipment is permanently monitoring the temperature on Jupiter (as an example) how many pieces of equipment there are 'in' the planet (joke!) etc.

Once you have done that, compare that with the amount of equipment available to humanity over the last 100 to 200 years or so, for monitoring temperature, rain etc on earth.

Then think how crazy it is for the likes of some people to start looking at individual weather stations with suspicion, yet happily accept a theory that other planets are warming.

The basic fact is because of an enormous lack of data about the planets in the solar system compared to what we have about earth, you are effectively abandoning any logic, science or rational thought, by accepting that data about the other planets is more robust than the home grown stuff.

 

[The Ville]

It's called confirmation bias. I've been accused of it myself, and to some extent we are all guilty of it. What makes it different in the case of the IPCC is that it's institutionalized, billions of pounds and politicians' careers are resting on it, and careers of some who dared to challenge have been destroyed. In anyone's mind, that ought to raise serious doubts and questions.

It sounds more like you have gone native!

I don't read a British opinion in what you write.

I do read classic American cultural indoctrination, the same that can be read in many American skeptic voices.

eg. Al Gore, blah, blah, blah (No one in the UK is interested in Gore)
The IPPC blah, blah, blah.

 

[The Ville]

I used to conduct research with a team of very clever and, in some cases, world-renowned colleagues at a British university. I remember seeing, several years ago, one of the papers they published. The basic premise of the paper was that cause X leads to effect Y. Their starting assumption was that this relationship was directly proportional: Y=aX+b. Indeed, it would be particularly convenient to the then prevalent theory if that were the case. Amusingly, the hard data produced by their experiment revealed a relationship that was inversely proportional: The line went down instead of up. Even more amusingly, none of the peer reviewers spotted this, and the article was published in one of the IEEE journals (if I remember correctly).

Not knowing anything about the said paper.
(You actually asked me to provide a link to something I commented on (and am unable to do so because of the forum rules), but you completely fail to link to the paper you refer to and you are permitted to make links!)

The issue is what is the history of the paper and what the status of the paper is status now? not that it was apparently wrong a few years ago (and apparently you may have not done anything to flag the error??).

Basically your anecdote actually confirms the process works (assuming someone did notice). It is certainly not for a lawyer to decide whether the science is right or wrong.

 

[The Ville]

Lost internet access for most of the day!

Returning to your very first post...

1) Global temperatures have cooled in the last decade, enough to wipe out the one degree rise of the previous 100 years.

Well ignoring whether they have gone up or down. 10 years isn't sufficient to determine a trend in climate related temperature. If the data were less noisy then maybe 10 years would be OK, but given that the level of noise is what it is, using 10 years of data would be bad science.

So whether you think it has warmed or cooled, neither view is reliable over such a short period.

2) Mankind is responsible for a fraction of one percent of the effect of greenhouse gases.

Sounds like a Monckton comment.
He is well known for mixing information up and getting things really badly wrong.
CO2 is in literal terms a trace gas in the atmosphere, however IR radiation doesn't really react to it based on proportions. As far as IR radiation goes, CO2 represents about 9% of the atmosphere and water vapour some 90% because IR doesn't interact with O2 and Nitrogen in the same way. An IR wave wouldn't see much oxygen etc. even though it is a bigger part of the atmosphere. If CO2 was doubled, it then comes closer to 20% (in volume) of the atmosphere that IR radiation 'sees' and responds to.

The other point is that it has never been a case of human CO2 sources being the only issue.
The reason for increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are a result of the sources and sinks changing.
Humanity is the biggest source of the additions and we are also changing the sinks so that more of what we pump out stays up there.

Also the isotope signature in the atmosphere points to human emissions. If it were a 'natural' issue (eg. the classic Volcano meme), the signature would be different.

3) Governments are unnecessarily imposing regulations that make us poorer (higher prices for traditional fuels) and less safe (smaller and lighter cars).

Well it would be nice to stick to science.
Maybe you can explain the logic behind a car that is smaller and lighter being less safe?
Are British cars less safe because they are smaller and lighter than the average American car?
Maybe this has already been tackled by other posters, I haven't read them all!

Also what is a traditional fuel??
Wind power is far more traditional than any other!

 

[LicensedToTrade]

You should have your own private forum, that way you would always be right.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Erm, I suggest you understand your own software before asking newbies to do something they are prohibited to do!

But in any case no link is needed, unless humanity has overnight colonised Mars or Venus etc.

I think the oneous is on you if you are questioning an obvious fact.

Please state exactly what equipment is permanently monitoring the temperature on Jupiter (as an example) how many pieces of equipment there are 'in' the planet (joke!) etc.

Once you have done that, compare that with the amount of equipment available to humanity over the last 100 to 200 years or so, for monitoring temperature, rain etc on earth.

Then think how crazy it is for the likes of some people to start looking at individual weather stations with suspicion, yet happily accept a theory that other planets are warming.

The basic fact is because of an enormous lack of data about the planets in the solar system compared to what we have about earth, you are effectively abandoning any logic, science or rational thought, by accepting that data about the other planets is more robust than the home grown stuff.

For a moment there, I thought you actually knew something about science! (That was a compliment, by the way ). Too many people in this thread have simply made statements without a shred of evidence to support their claims, and last night I just assumed you fell into the same category. Now I'm in two minds.

But this response didn't do you justice. How do you think we measure temperatures on distant stars? Or more simply put, how do we know that atoms really exist when we cannot literally see them? We conduct experiments. We deduce from the information available to us (which, in some cases, is no more than the spectrum of a light wave reaching us from distant parts). Of course we can measure temperatures elsewhere in our solar system without actually placing a thermometer on the surface.

 

[Dawg]

Are British cars less safe because they are smaller and lighter than the average American car?

Dunno. Naming those British cars would be a good start...

However, disregarding the Nationalism of Cars, if you Google 'small cars less safe' you will find plenty of evidence that they are. They are built with lighter, thinner metal, more plastic and offer less protection in accidents. They account for more fatalities per million passenger miles; would that be a reasonable measure of safety?

(Small German sports cars are however very safely built. This safety is often dealt a blow by the attentions of the arm candy in the passenger seat.)

 

[Cornish Steve]

Al Gore, blah, blah, blah

The Norwegians awarded him a Nobel Prize for the pack of lies he produced on film. He's almost the first 'green' billionaire, so he's relevant here. He's a good case study as to why the 'elite' expect us to simply fall in line: It's largely about power and money and using fear tactics to scare the masses.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Well ignoring whether they have gone up or down. 10 years isn't sufficient to determine a trend in climate related temperature. If the data were less noisy then maybe 10 years would be OK, but given that the level of noise is what it is, using 10 years of data would be bad science.

So which would you prefer? 10 years? 100 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? The only time-frame that implies a slight degree of warming is 100 years. Even then, the results are at least partially contaminated by the positioning of the temperature recording stations (i.e., in cities that have grown and become warmer due to their growth). Guess which one finds its way into most establishment reports.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I don't read a British opinion in what you write.

I do read classic American cultural indoctrination, the same that can be read in many American skeptic voices.

From a poll conducted by BBC News supports the claim that we Brits are beginning to see through the propaganda.

The number of people who now question global warming (not just anthropogenic global warming) practically doubled in just a few months. The new PM, who was such a fervent believer not so long ago, was muted during the election campaign because he understands that more people are skeptical on the subject. And so they should be.

 

[The Ville]

How do you think we measure temperatures on distant stars?

With great difficulty and a great deal of inaccuracies.
Tell me, how often is the temperature of a specific star read??

Once a month?
Once a day?
No, you would be lucky to get a reading once a year.
Oh and lets not forget that the star might not actually exist at the time the measurement was taken!

Get real.
Before you start laying on the criticism, check how such measurements relate to the subject.
We don't have and we never will have the same 'density' of data for any other planet as we do for Earth.

Or more simply put, how do we know that atoms really exist when we cannot literally see them?

Oh good grief!
The science of the atom and the way we use that science in everyday life has a repeatable consistency. The science has an internal consistency that is exploited in everyday engineering, if there was a problem with identifying greenhouse gases, then every aspect of our lives would not be as you or I see it.

The fact that IR spectroscopy is used in many, many fields of activity means that the science of the atom is sufficiently robust to apply it to many areas.

Of course we can measure temperatures elsewhere in our solar system without actually placing a thermometer on the surface.

That was not the issue I raised.
I specifically pointed out the quantity and spread of data is hugely different between Earth and the other planets.
It is logically stupid to put as much faith in measurements of the other planets as one does on Earth measurements. It would be bad science to do so.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Oh good grief!
The science of the atom and the way we use that science in everyday life has a repeatable consistency.

But the plain fact is that you will never see one. The point I'm making is that we can have confidence in some things even though we have no direct evidence. Indeed, whole topics in science would have to be written off if we limited ourselves to direct, tangible evidence. You rightly object that no one seriously believes atoms don't exist. (Like me, maybe you've used an electron microscope and inferred things from what you see.) So why do you object to temperatures implied from various forms of radiation we receive from space? If you don't accept them, you might as well throw out a large body of theory in astrophysics.

And, by the way, the most accurate measurements of the earth's temperature come from satellites, because they tend to be less contaminated: ironic since you object to temperatures taken from space.

 

[The Ville]

So which would you prefer? 10 years? 100 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? The only time-frame that implies a slight degree of warming is 100 years. Even then, the results are at least partially contaminated by the positioning of the temperature recording stations (i.e., in cities that have grown and become warmer due to their growth). Guess which one finds its way into most establishment reports.

It isn't a question of human preference, statistical analysis determines the period, based on how noisy the data is. For the temperature data they use, the period works out to about 30 years or so, but that would change if the noise in the data changed.

The issue about positioning ground stations is largely junk and there have been a number of studies that show that any local variations do not change the global picture of temperature. You are stepping into paranoia and conspiracy territory.

 

[Cornish Steve]

The issue about positioning ground stations is largely junk and there have been a number of studies that show that any local variations do not change the global picture of temperature. You are stepping into paranoia and conspiracy territory.

That's not what several recent reports have stated. Also, satellite data (which is the best to use) shows less of an increase in temperature, and the best explanation is contamination of ground-based temperature monitoring sites.

 

[The Ville]

So why do you object to temperatures implied from various forms of radiation we receive from space? If you don't accept them, you might as well throw out a large body of theory in astrophysics.

Wrong. You are misrepresenting what I have written.
Again I repeat, my comment was about the amount of data and the frequency of measurements.

I do accept data about the temperature on Mars, Jupiter and Stars etc.
But all that data has by definition larger potential errors and inaccuracies and the quantity, plus frequency are not there.
eg. we don't know the exact distances to most stars unless they are quite close. There are margins of error in the region of hundreds or even thousands of light years as you look further into space.
And we don't know what the temperature is at a specific location on Mars or why it might be hotter at that location at a specific time.
The detail is just not there.

And, by the way, the most accurate measurements of the earth's temperature come from satellites, because they tend to be less contaminated: ironic since you object to temperatures taken from space.

As I said, I don't object to such readings. I repeat that it is the quality and quantity of data about other bodies that is the problem for those that have some faith in alternative theories about global warming.
In fact it is satellite readings of earths temperatures that confirm that CO2 is a warming gas!
The vacuum of space is a good place to prove it and analyse the spectrography of the different gases in our atmosphere.

 

[The Ville]

That's not what several recent reports have stated. Also, satellite data (which is the best to use) shows less of an increase in temperature, and the best explanation is contamination of ground-based temperature monitoring sites.

And what peer reviewed reports would that be?

 

[The Ville]

Actually, water vapour is far more important. In comparison, the amount of CO2 we produce has a small effect.

Water is different from CO2, it acts as a feedback mechanism because it can change between the solid, gas and liquid states in our environment.
Hence if you add more CO2 it has an influence on water. It amplifies the changes caused by the other greenhouse gases, whether that is in the cooling direction or warming direction.

 

[Cornish Steve]

And what peer reviewed reports would that be?

The same level of peer review as most sources quoted in the IPCC report.

More seriously, several serious reports have been written on this topic. The first step is knowing there's a problem. The second is figuring out how to correct for those errors. Different people have applied different methods in an attempt to normalize the data.

 

[The Ville]

The same level of peer review as most sources quoted in the IPCC report.

More seriously, several serious reports have been written on this topic.

And those reports are?

Localised discrepancies don't have a major impact on the temperature record. If anything removing some stations has imposed a tiny cooling trend in the surface temperature record, if you reintroduced some of those that have been dropped out, it would show a warmer trend.

 

[The Ville]

BTW fans of Monckton should watch and listen to this:

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

 

[Cornish Steve]

And those reports are?

I believe some were quoted earlier in the thread, but a quick Google search pulled up this one (I can't access the PDF file because I appear to have too old a version of Acrobat running on this laptop). A summary of some of the findings:

According to the U.S. government, a surface station must be at least 100 feet away from a heat source/sink to be considered reliable. Using the government's own standards for properly locating temperature sensors, Watts graded each site on a scale from 1 to 5. A grade of 1 or 2 indicates reliable placement. A grade of 3 to 5 can result in temperature errors of several degrees, according to the governments [sic] own studies.

To date, the investigation has noted that only 3 percent of the stations surveyed were grade 1. Roughly 8 percent were grade 2, meaning only 11 percent of the stations are located in a manner that results in reliable temperature data. Some 20 percent of stations were grade 3, the majority were grade 4 (58 percent), and 11 percent were graded as 5.

That points to serious contamination of data.

And I was serious about sources in the IPCC report. They used not only news outlets as sources but also documents published by Greenpeace and other environment groups.

 

[cjd]

And I was serious about sources in the IPCC report. They used not only news outlets as sources but also documents published by Greenpeace and other environment groups.

The sources that were obviously wrong have been removed and apologised for and made no difference whatsoever to any conclusions. You can't hope to discredit acres of data by finding a couple of error that are of no consequence.

But you will try nevertheless. It's that confirmation bias thing again - ignore the massive weight of evidence that support the thesis but place massive weight on the few bit that doesn't.

Haven't you learnt anything from your denial of evolutionary theory and belief in Noah's Ark?