What global warming?

precedes or is coincident with temp rise and lags a fall. With that kind of data, I'd be happy to take the error margin of 200 years.
I realize you can't access the PDF file right now, but please trust me when I state that the researchers found that increases in CO2 levels lag increases in temperature by 800 years - plus or minus 200 years. Given their error limits, it's equally valid to claim, over hundreds of thousands of years, that CO2 levels have not preceded temperature increases.
 
Upvote 0

cjd

Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    16,002
    3,432
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    I realize you can't access the PDF file right now, but please trust me when I state that the researchers found that increases in CO2 levels lag increases in temperature by 800 years - plus or minus 200 years. Given their error limits, it's equally valid to claim, over hundreds of thousands of years, that CO2 levels have not preceded temperature increases.

    hey, over half a million years I'll take an error of +/-1000 years; wouldn't you?

    and the CO2?
     
    Upvote 0
    No, no. I'm happy with the data. It shows that warming and C02 levels occur simultaneously. So we know that they are linked, CO2 is either causal (or partly causal) or an indicator of warming. Either way we're fkuced.

    As far as whether CO2 precedes or follows, it's clear from the graphs that it precedes or is coincident with temp rise and lags a fall. With that kind of data, I'd be happy to take the error margin of 200 years.

    No idea whether whether we can do anything about it of course.
    Actually, given than global warming is much preferable to global cooling, I'd say we're in much bigger trouble if the US president's science czar gets his way. This is a quote from CBS News earlier in the year.

    Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming - a radical idea once dismissed out of hand - is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, the president's new science adviser said Wednesday. That's because global warming is happening so rapidly, John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month.

    The concept of using technology to purposely cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren and proposed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.

    Using such an experimental measure is only being thought of as a last resort, Holdren said. "It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury ... of ruling any approach off the table."

    At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.

    "We're talking about all these issues in the White House," Holdren said. "There's a very vigorous process going on of discussing all the options for addressing the energy climate challenge."


    If we actually did this, temperatures could drop precipitously. And seeing the sun, moon, and stars as permanently 'blood red' would take a little getting used to.
     
    Upvote 0

    Subbynet

    Free Member
    Aug 1, 2005
    6,000
    1,101
    45
    Luton
    Using such an experimental measure is only being thought of as a last resort, Holdren said. "It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury ... of ruling any approach off the table."

    I find this the key part...

    I don't think you have anything to worry about. If he had said lets cover the atmosphere in a thin layer of smoked bacon to reflect the rays I'd say jeez, you've got a big problem... Not enough bacon. :p

    As is it, he seems to have devised a plan which others deem credible, even if we ourselves deem it incredible.

    Here's another quote from the page you linked too.

    The 65-year-old physicist is far from alone in taking geoengineering seriously. The National Academy of Sciences is making it the subject of the first workshop in its new climate challenges program for policymakers, scientists and the public. The British Parliament has also discussed the idea. At an international meeting of climate scientists last month in Copenhagen, 15 talks dealt with different aspects of geoengineering.

    The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."
     
    Upvote 0
    M

    masterofnone

    I'm not an expert but I have looked into this subject a little, and looked to sources I consider to be sensible and independent. I must conclude that the green movement generally is supported by exaggerated claims, misleading data and sometimes outright untruths.

    Businessmen and women need to make sure they do not support measures which ultimately infringe upon the free market and centralize more power to government - as near as I can tell this is the aim of such eco-movements which carry out a political agenda regardless of the science thereof. It is a device used, like many others over the generations, to put power into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

    The ice-core data is an interesting point. My understanding is that the public have been told that the ice layers represent years and thus can be traced back accurately (like the rings on a tree). It's a nice idea but it certainly did not have the agreement of a guy who some years ago excavated a crashed World War II plane from the ice after digging through *hundreds*of such layers: These layers seem to represent periods of cooling and warming (which can happen numerous times per year) and so there is no way of telling how old something is from ice-core data.

    Then there were the faked seal culls videos that Greenpeace put out in the 1980s (?) - all actors, not real...
     
    Upvote 0

    cjd

    Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    16,002
    3,432
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    If he had said lets cover the atmosphere in a thin layer of smoked bacon to reflect the rays I'd say jeez, you've got a big problem... Not enough bacon. :p

    I'm buying pork belly futures
     
    Upvote 0
    No, no. I'm happy with the data. It shows that warming and C02 levels occur simultaneously. So we know that they are linked, CO2 is either causal (or partly causal) or an indicator of warming. Either way we're fkuced.

    As far as whether CO2 precedes or follows, it's clear from the graphs that it precedes or is coincident with temp rise and lags a fall. With that kind of data, I'd be happy to take the error margin of 200 years.

    No idea whether whether we can do anything about it of course.

    Any idea where the CO2 came from in the past CO2 picks? Just wondering since there were no cars around.
    BTW, humans produce CO2 regardless of whether we drive cars or not, we inhale air rich in oxygen, and produce CO2 that we release into the atmosphere. Shouldn't we hold our breath to save the planet? If we produce CO2 while breathing, can you imagine how much a single dinosaur could have produced? whouldn't we be hunting whales to extinction and other big animals to save the planet?

    Let me explain what this is all about.
    There was a time when if the people in power wanted to manipulate the people into doing something, they would call the Pope, or the Bishop of Canterbury and ask them to do this small favour for them. So, these religious leaders would issue instructions to the priests or the vicars and you would have them preaching in the morning sermons that if the common people wanted to avoid burning in hell they should pay the taxes they were ask for and do not complaint. Failing to do that would be a terrible sin, and all the rest. But this time is long gone. Two many spiritual leaders around to bring them on board, and, what is more, those who are in power today are so because their predecesors succided in descrediting those religious leaders, so they could break the monopoly of power the establishment in the past has.
    Yet the need by the rulling groups of mainpulating the folks is there, and now they have a more powerfull mean to do so: the mass media. So, they create ad hoc commitees of well feed medium class people who would be grateful for the position, and more so of their salary, that they will be loyal to the power as they would be very scared to lose what they were undeservenly given. Create a message, and repeate the message on TV as many times as possible, that is the whole thing about a propaganda campaing.
    This thing with the Climate Change propaganda taps into the most encrusted cultural traditions, the cristian one. To be "good", deserving, etc., to feel good about ourselfs we need to suffer and pay for our sins. Absurd as it may look, this is te kind of masoquist psicology the judeo-christian tradition has created. So, if we are successful, and we do not have major problems, then there must be somting wrong about it, we must be commiting some sort of sin. Thenkfully there are always a buch of people in any society, with the charater to become self appointed priest of the new redeption. So, yes, we are sinner but if we repent and pretend we are doing something, showing a lot of remorse and all the rest, things are okay. So, if the members of the IPCC, with their activities prodice many times more CO2 into the atmosphere, that is okay because they do it for a good cause, it is good CO2 that will not harm the planet.
    Thankfully enough, these newly appointend priest, have a heart and they grant us a few extensions from time to time. About 10 years ago, when the media circus on this subject started, they were repeating that we had about 15 years to dramatically reduce the CO2 emissions or the climat would go throught some kind of point of no return and we would be dammed for ever. Ten years have gone by, the emissions have not been reduced, and, well, they gave us another chance, they granted us an extension.
    Meanwhile, planet Earth continues to defy the the revealed truth, and we are feeling that while Global Worming is underway we are feeling more a more cold.
    If you ask me, as manipulators the priest beat these amateuristic manipulators hand down. After all they had thousens of years of tradition behind them, and they knew that they not only needed god and evil withing the human conscience but also out there in nature, so they can play with it. If these green church priest had this tool they could blame the lak of warming for the last 10 years on the goodness of a god that takes care of us and that had been moved by our good behaviour since we pay our taxes and believe in the good heart of the IPCC members.
     
    Upvote 0

    trjewelry

    Free Member
    Nov 25, 2009
    2
    0
    I think that global warming is very worthy of serious attention, and
    As we are now living on the city of Shenzhen look at the past few years a very long summer, but winter is very short, and more extreme weather, which has a relationship are related to global warming, we need the Government to take control of many forms emissions of carbon dioxide, or a later date would be more sad
     
    Upvote 0

    cjd

    Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    16,002
    3,432
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    Let me explain what this is all about.

    I think we'd better stick to the science; let's leave the conspiracy theory to the idiots.
     
    Upvote 0
    I think that global warming is very worthy of serious attention, and
    As we are now living on the city of Shenzhen look at the past few years a very long summer, but winter is very short, and more extreme weather, which has a relationship are related to global warming, we need the Government to take control of many forms emissions of carbon dioxide, or a later date would be more sad

    What summers are you talking about?
     
    Upvote 0
    I think we'd better stick to the science; let's leave the conspiracy theory to the idiots.

    It is you, and your fellows of the green church who don't what to talk of science, exactly like the creationists. It is you only take on board only the plots in the pages that you reference that agree with your preconceptions and ignore the rest. The plot that I put here last, was in the page of the plot you had put here previously, you ignored mine because it clearly shows that the climate has been colling for the last 2000 years, and today is cooler than in the time of Christ despite the recent fluctuation.

    And it is not conspiracy theory, is how the world function. A society without manipulation, would be a society that could not be governed, it is simply impossible that everyone would have the time and the brains to understand all the issues. The question is how are we manipulated, by whom and to what ends.

    And finally, you have been saying that, according to your point of view, we are going to fry. Okay, we are going to fry, so, why would we have to keep on paying the salaries of the members of the IPCC? Just enjoy it while it last. No, but you know that, if we behave like we are told, and be good, there is hope. Isn't it?

    Just for fun, and talking about science, how much do you think the sea levels would rise if only the north pole ice were to melt? any idea?
     
    Upvote 0

    cjd

    Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    16,002
    3,432
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    It is you, and your fellows of the green church who don't what to talk of science, exactly like the creationists.

    You really don't listen do you?

    I am not a member of the 'green church' nor do I necessarily believe much of what I'm told about global warming. Do you remember I said I was a sceptic? (About 3 times now). You just got upset and confused because I pointed out that the scientific consensus was against you.

    Given that none of us know anything at all about the subject, it's complete hubris to conclude that the global consensus is wrong.

    atm I'm sceptical about both camps while I read more about them - your ranting, conspiracy theory nonsense is not terribly helpful to your cause.

    As for your charts, I found them interesting and I'm not ignoring them - I just see different things in them to you.

    eg Your statement that we are in a cool(er) age compared to 7,000 years ago is true (according to your chart) but it's also true that we're warmer now than 12,000 years ago and, more importantly, the graph is on the up-cycle - not down. So on balance I choose to conclude that we're heading towards warming rather than cooling and I think you'd be hard pushed to say anything different from that chart.
     
    Upvote 0
    M

    masterofnone

    Those who deny conspiracy, deny history. Many events in the history of nations came about through conspiracies - it is part and parcel of political life and to deny that is to be living in a dream world. Now, that is not to say that every conspiracy theory is based on sound evidence of course...


    But evidence seems to be the last thing people look at when they have an idea of what they want to be true. Scientists, honest scientists, follow the scientific method. There are many scientists today - good, honest scientists - who challenge the idea of man-made global warming. There is a growing body of evidence showing man-made global warming to be based on fraud, exaggeration and selective use of data. It is like the theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence for it, and there is a great deal that disproves it - but people still believe in evolution because they do not want to accept the implications of creation. And not one in ten thousand actually thinks for himself, but is quite happy to accept what the media or governmental bodies say. But to find truth requires effort.
     
    Upvote 0

    Subbynet

    Free Member
    Aug 1, 2005
    6,000
    1,101
    45
    Luton
    There is no scientific evidence for it, and there is a great deal that disproves it - but people still believe in evolution because they do not want to accept the implications of creation. And not one in ten thousand actually thinks for himself, but is quite happy to accept what the media or governmental bodies say. But to find truth requires effort.

    So the world is only 10,000 years old, and all the charts posted on this are massively out by hundreds of thousands of years?

    Or, maybe we do have a scientific consensus that evolution is real, so the charts are right?

    And to think you started talking about conspiracies. :)
     
    Upvote 0
    You really don't listen do you?

    I am not a member of the 'green church' nor do I necessarily believe much of what I'm told about global warming. Do you remember I said I was a sceptic? (About 3 times now). You just got upset and confused because I pointed out that the scientific consensus was against you.

    Given that none of us know anything at all about the subject, it's complete hubris to conclude that the global consensus is wrong.

    atm I'm sceptical about both camps while I read more about them - your ranting, conspiracy theory nonsense is not terribly helpful to your cause.

    As for your charts, I found them interesting and I'm not ignoring them - I just see different things in them to you.

    eg Your statement that we are in a cool(er) age compared to 7,000 years ago is true (according to your chart) but it's also true that we're warmer now than 12,000 years ago and, more importantly, the graph is on the up-cycle - not down. So on balance I choose to conclude that we're heading towards warming rather than cooling and I think you'd be hard pushed to say anything different from that chart.

    No, I AM THE SKEPTIC, now, that I hope to have gained some credibility because I said so: Your graph is all wrong, isn't it?.
    Firs of all, I DO NOT HAVE A CAUSE, I have an opinion. Who ever wants to benefit from it, bless him, who doesn't good for him. So, I don't care if you feel that every person on the planet never attempted to deceive anyone and that everybody acts just out of a pure honesty and there are no manipulations of the masses. Sorry if I don't envy your naivety, after all there may have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

    So, we, as if you knew that you and I are comparable, know nothing about the subject but then you dear to comment on plots, and in the next paragraph dear to talk about cycles. What cycles? Yes, the earth now is cooler than 6000 to 8000 years ago, when humans not only lived and thrived on the planet. For starts, you can get rid of the qualification of "unprecedented" for the current global warming. Yes, it is true that now it is warmer than 14000 years ago, and collar than 50.000 years ago, etc.
    But there isn't a geological cycle of a few centuries, let alone a few decades, talking of climate change at that scale is pure and simple ignorance/bad faith. The only cycle, geological cycle I mean, is the one that shows that we are past the pick of the temperature between ice ages and what awaits the Earth is a drop in temperatures regardless of what we do.

    The curious thing about all this, is that we don't know, and nobody know for sure why this cycles happen. The least known subject in science probably is the Earth, specifically what goes on inside the Earth, why the magnetic field exists and, more importantly, how it changes and why. There are lots of theories around, and lots of computer models, none of which explains all the observations. But the fact remains that there must be a reason for those fairly regular climatic changes over periods of several thousands of years. A small fluctuation withing one cycle means nothing, as the middle age warm period meant nothing, or the particular cool spell during the 1960's meant nothing.

    Many of the science involved in this issue is at the reach of anyone, specially when it comes to the scare mongering bits of it. That is why I asked you about how much would the sea levels rise if only the north pole ice were to melt. You can check it out in your home kitchen. Just take a glass, put a solid piece of ice from your fridge inside (not one of those pieces of ice with a hole in the middle), then place the glass on top of some kitchen paper, and then carefully fill the glass with water till the brim so you do not wet the paper. Then wait till the ice melt and see if the paper gets wet. It will not. Why, Arkimedes gave us the solution: the ice is water, the volume taken by the ice in the water (the submerged part) is equal to the volume that the same amount of water that weights the same as the ice will occupy, but, when the ice melts turns into water, therefore only takes the volume that was previously displaced by the ice.
    Conclusion, since the North Pole ice is a piece of floating ice, if melted, it wouldn't cause any variation on the sea levels. Only ice that is on lad, can cause this, so, yes Ice on Greenland etc, would cause this, and Antarctica, but these are tiny amounts compared to the ice that melted during the end of the ice age.
    But more so, how much temperatures, according to the scare mongers would rise? 1, 2, 4 degrees centigrade? Antarctica, is under -15C the warmest, and water freezes at 0C. On the contrary, if temperatures are to rise that much, what would happen would be: higher temperature-> higher evaporation of the water of the sea->more moisture in the air->some of it would go to Antarctica, and also to the Artic circle-> it would fall in the form of snow or ice, and it would be more likely that while the cups can get smaller in extension they would get much thicker.
    But still, assume that temperatures rise, and then some ice will melt, how long will it take? Just leave another piece of ice in your kitchen sink at room temperature, which I assume is around 20C (you put the heating on, don't you) and check the time it takes to melt. So, how much would it take to melt many cubic miles of ice that first was a -1C and then is a 1C to melt? O better still, put the ice on a plate an put the plate in the fridge at 3C or so, and take the measurement there.
    If global warming happens the way you seem to fear, there is nothing to fear at least for those who are alive today, and for two generations more, but a better climate, more rain fall, better crops. What would happen after that, 200 years or so down the line, who knows? will there be humans left to worry about? would have the next ice age started? would oil (finally) run out?. Of one thing we can be sure, you an I will never find out.

    Another thing is the lack of responsibility, it looks like anyone can scare avery body else free of charge. I've been taxed with this scam of the climate change and with the booty many people are enjoying fat salaries, nice trips to conference and God only know what else. For the last 4 years I havn't seen any summer in this country, it has been freezing out there every winter. If the climate doesn't star warming in the next couple of years, I want my money back.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Upvote 0

    Subbynet

    Free Member
    Aug 1, 2005
    6,000
    1,101
    45
    Luton
    Just saying, but Ice doesn't always freeze at 0 (amazing I know)... The ice is retreating in Antartica, and its well below the freezing point, other factors are at play here, and we don't really know what... (Something to do with "slippage" under the ice they think)

    I ain't got no link, I read this yesterday following on from an earlier post.

    Google is your friend.
     
    Upvote 0

    cjd

    Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    16,002
    3,432
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    No, I AM THE SKEPTIC, now, that I hope to have gained some credibility because I said so: Your graph is all wrong, isn't it?.
    Firs of all, I DO NOT HAVE A CAUSE, I have an opinion. Who ever wants to benefit from it, bless him, who doesn't good for him. So, I don't care if you feel that every person on the planet never attempted to deceive anyone and that everybody acts just out of a pure honesty and there are no manipulations of the masses. Sorry if I don't envy your naivety, after all there may have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

    Get a grip chuck, calm down, re-read what you write and think a bit before you post.
     
    Upvote 0
    Any idea where the CO2 came from in the past CO2 picks? Just wondering since there were no cars around.
    Currently, about 3% of the carbon dioxide in the air can be attributed to human activity. The rest comes from 'natural' sources.

    Just saying, but Ice doesn't always freeze at 0 (amazing I know)... The ice is retreating in Antartica
    The ice sheet in the Antarctic Peninsula has indeed melted at a remarkably fast pace. At the same time, the west Antarctic ice sheet has thickened considerably. Overall, the region has experienced slight cooling. This is why anecdotal evidence ("it was warmer than usual this summer") is rather meaningless (although it is fun when record colds greet AGW promoters at their conferences!). What we're discussing is global temperature, not local phenomena.

    It is you, and your fellows of the green church
    That comment to CJD made my day! :)
     
    Upvote 0

    cjd

    Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    16,002
    3,432
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    Currently, about 3% of the carbon dioxide in the air can be attributed to human activity. The rest comes from 'natural' sources.

    Where did the rest (ie above the 325 highest previous norm) of the C02 in this graph come from then do you reckon?


    carbonDioxideLevels.jpg



    That comment to CJD made my day! :)

    And mine. Poor chap has lost the plot.
     
    Upvote 0
    Indisputably, gases from manufacturing processes and transportation are 'man-made'. Similarly, gases from volcanic activity are 'natural'. But what about the gas produced by large herds of cattle? I'm guessing they are included among the 'natural' sources. You could argue that there's more cattle because of human activity, so that's a bit of a grey area. And, of course, there are billions more people around today than at the turn of the century.

    Note that the increase is of the order of 100 parts per million, so the scale can be deceptive. You're not seeing absolute values on that chart but variations visually amplified by the chosen scale.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0

    Subbynet

    Free Member
    Aug 1, 2005
    6,000
    1,101
    45
    Luton
    Because it has salt dissolved, just shift the 0 a few degrees dawn.

    I knew that... kind of taking the michael...

    So, how much would it take to melt many cubic miles of ice that first was a -1C and then is a 1C to melt? O better still, put the ice on a plate an put the plate in the fridge at 3C or so, and take the measurement there.

    Not long, the freezing point of salt water is already well below -1C, the more salt the lower the temp, to a max of something like -20C, while still remaining a liquid. Now this liquid is partly responsible for the "slippage" of ice (the creation of ice largely pushes out the salt moles), along with massive amounts of pressure from the sheer weight above it that's causing the rest of the ice to move out to sea - decreasing the time it takes to melt due to its extra surface exposure to water and air.

    On the contrary, if temperatures are to rise that much, what would happen would be: higher temperature-> higher evaporation of the water of the sea->more moisture in the air->some of it would go to Antarctica, and also to the Artic circle-> it would fall in the form of snow or ice, and it would be more likely that while the cups can get smaller in extension they would get much thicker.

    And if we have higher temps, more evaporation, we have more salt in the water, and less ice because the water freezing point has been lowered? (by the salt)

    I do agree with the idea the ice will become thicker, mainly because now the ice can only really build on top of the ice - you have a equilibrium allowing the water to turn to ice, which isn't present in the coastal areas where the salt is greater.
     
    Upvote 0

    cjd

    Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    16,002
    3,432
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    Note that the increase is of the order of 100 parts per million, so the scale can be deceptive. You're not seeing absolute values on that chart but variations visually amplified by the chosen scale.

    That's tosh isn't it:) ?

    If we look at the last peak at about 115,000 years ago we had a CO2 low of about 160 ppm and a high of 280ppm

    This latest cycle has a low of about the same but a high (so far) of 380 ish. It's a linear scale. That's a 36% increase in C02 above the last previous high. In fact it's 30+% bigger than any previous peak and it's still rising.

    So where is it coming from? Don't remember much volcanic activity and I don't buy the cow thing either (even if true, it's still down to us).

    Of course, if C02 demand has dropped (rather than C02 supply increasing) I expect that would have a feedback effect - maybe ocean warming releases CO2 or prevents its absorption.
     
    Upvote 0
    This latest cycle has a low of about the same but a high (so far) of 380 ish. It's a linear scale. That's a 36% increase in C02 above the last previous high. In fact it's 30+% bigger than any previous peak and it's still rising.
    The following data alone goes a long way to explain the rise in CO2 - since, of course, every human being is a CO2-generating machine:

    - In 1750, the world's population was 790 million
    - In 1800, the world's population was 980 million
    - In 1850, the world's population was 1,260 million
    - In 1900, the world's population was 1,650 million
    - In 1950, the world's population was 2,520 million
    - In 2000, the world's population was over 6 billion

    The growth in the world's population over the previous 9 years is greater than the entire world population in 1750. The growth of the world's population every 7 months is equal to the entire world population during the time of the Roman Empire.

    Maybe tackling poverty and disease in the developing world, because higher GDP always correlates with smaller families, and slowing/halting the destruction of the world's great forests are far more worthy goals on which to spend trillions of pounds.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0

    Subbynet

    Free Member
    Aug 1, 2005
    6,000
    1,101
    45
    Luton
    The following data alone goes a long way to explain the rise in CO2 - since, of course, every human being is a CO2-generating machine:

    - In 1750, the world's population was 790 million
    - In 1800, the world's population was 980 million
    - In 1850, the world's population was 1,260 million
    - In 1900, the world's population was 1,650 million
    - In 1950, the world's population was 2,520 million
    - In 2000, the world's population was over 6 billion

    The growth in the world's population over the previous 9 years is greater than the entire world population in 1750.

    That's the human population ain't it?
     
    Upvote 0
    That's the human population ain't it?
    So what are you suggesting - that we cull the human population? :)

    All the restrictions about to be imposed and the obscene amounts of money spent on pushing industry back to medieval times assume the problem is with our power and transportation needs, and this simply is not the case.
     
    Upvote 0
    That's tosh isn't it:) ?

    If we look at the last peak at about 115,000 years ago we had a CO2 low of about 160 ppm and a high of 280ppm

    This latest cycle has a low of about the same but a high (so far) of 380 ish. It's a linear scale. That's a 36% increase in C02 above the last previous high. In fact it's 30+% bigger than any previous peak and it's still rising.

    So where is it coming from? Don't remember much volcanic activity and I don't buy the cow thing either (even if true, it's still down to us).

    Of course, if C02 demand has dropped (rather than C02 supply increasing) I expect that would have a feedback effect - maybe ocean warming releases CO2 or prevents its absorption.

    Oh yes! this are the kind of things I love the most.
    Lets look in the wikipedia, that you so much love:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere
    "Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. As of 2004[update], around 27 gigatonnes of CO2 are released from fossil fuels per year worldwide, equivalent to about 7.4 gigatonnes of carbon (see List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions); in 2006 8.4 gigatonnes carbon were emitted [1]. Simple calculations based on the surface area of the Earth, normal atmospheric pressure, and an estimate of roughly 400ppmv atmospheric CO2 content show that the atmospheric CO2 content is currently approximately 3 teratonnes."
    1 teratonne = 1000 gigatonne
    Lets forget about emitting 8.4 gigatonnes, and lests round it up to 10. So, the contribution is of 1%. And this is coming form an article written to prove the catastrophe.
    It also says "As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume,".
    So we are talking that we are altering the atmosphere by a factor of 0.0000384 per year.
    Again, "There is an annual fluctuation of about 3–9 ppmv which roughly follows the Northern Hemisphere's growing season."
    So, between 1% to 2% seasonal fluctuation of CO2.
    Let me guess, this is what causes the difference in temperature between summer and winter, isn't it? the inclination of the axis of the earth and the more sun light during the summer has nothing to do with it.

    And all of this assuming the figures can be trusted. Because, again, we are doing as before, comparing figures that come from different sources: recent direct measurements of CO2 concentrations with figures extracted by indirect methods using a proxy that has not be re-calibrated.

    And again, okay, if as you say the pick is 30% higher than the previous pick, and the temperature is not, how can you explain it? what follows what? If the theory is true, and CO2 causes warming, and the CO2 stays up in the atmosphere for many decades to come as the "consensus" says, well? what can we do? go and pick it up little by little? Obviously no. So, as every thing is lost.... why should we care? fire the IPCC, and enjoy the oil reserves till they last of we fry, whatever comes first.
     
    Upvote 0

    cjd

    Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    16,002
    3,432
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    And again, okay, if as you say the pick is 30% higher than the previous pick, and the temperature is not, how can you explain it?

    Well I don't and it's a decent point. IF CO2 causes warming AND C02 is at world record highs, THEN why isn't it hotter?

    I don't know, it's a point that your average egit could make - what's the proper answer? There will be one, I'm sure.
     
    Upvote 0

    Subbynet

    Free Member
    Aug 1, 2005
    6,000
    1,101
    45
    Luton
    So what are you suggesting - that we cull the human population? :)

    All the restrictions about to be imposed and the obscene amounts of money spent on pushing industry back to medieval times assume the problem is with our power and transportation needs, and this simply is not the case.

    Was not suggesting any cull. But it sounds like your previous post just said Co2 was a man-made problem?
     
    Upvote 0
    Well I don't and it's a decent point. IF CO2 causes warming AND C02 is at world record highs, THEN why isn't it hotter?

    I don't know, it's a point that your average egit could make - what's the proper answer? There will be one, I'm sure.

    The proper answer? the ONLY answer is that CO2 do not cause global warming. We can still wait to be sure. We had, during the XX century, periods of cooling and warming. In the 60, when CO2 emission caused by humans incensed dramatically, temperature dropped, curiously enough the drop in temperature was blamed on pollution. Then we had 28 years of warming, and since then we had 10 years of cooling, first clearly cooling, a few with no temperature variation and the last clearly cooling.

    Now, when a theory makes a prediction and the data do not agree with that prediction, what HUMANS have been doing for many centuries, is to reject the theory. Apparently not so now, the theory is right, and there must be something wrong with the data or something else that we did not take into account, and surround it with mystery, as you just did.

    Let see what the theory says. It says that radiation from the sun, enters the atmosphere, some of it is reflected and some reaches us on the surface. As a consequence, the earth warms up, and then as any hot body does, emits radiation itself (pretty much independent of the composition of the body, see black body radiation). This radiation emitted by the non gaseous part of the earth, is partly lost to the space and part reflected back by the atmosphere. This part which is reflected back is what is supposed to caused the green house effects.

    I have several problems with this.
    First of all, the element that causes the much needed green house effect without which the temperature fluctuations between day and night would make our life impossible, is water. Yes, are the clouds that retain more heat. This can be observed daily. All other things being equal, a cloudy day has less temperature fluctuation between day and night, that is why in the deserts, where humidity is very very low, the variations of temperature are huge. Also, in winter, with a weak sun, it is normally warmer in a cloudy day.
    Daily variations of CO2 in the air, are non existing compared with the variations of clouds and humidity. So we know that the contribution of CO2 to the green house effect is tiny if any, not surprisingly since it makes only the 0.035% of the air (a completely ball game would be in Venus, where CO2 concentrations in its atmosphere are huge). From that tiny effect, what the theory is saying is that if we add 1% of that 0.035% temperatures can rise, due to it, 1, 2 or more degrees. So, if 0.035% has no or little effect on temperature, apparently 0.0035%, or 0.01% if you want to add up all human contribution, will. Astonishing!

    But don't take me wrong. I am all about reducing oil consumption, but for the right reasons, not for this scam. I don't feel that we in the west should live forced to take oil from other parts of the World, and be constantly under the threat of having to go to war to survive. Energy is not a luxury, is a necessity without which we can not feed the population. But to accomplish this independence from oil we need to do as we always did: have a problem-> develop the technology to solve it.
    The way we are NOT going to solve this problem is by wasting our resources y paying chatter boxes full of people who are not good for anything positive.
    You do not pay pseudo-scientists to create biased reports, you pay scientists to develop alternative energy sources, to improve on the nuclear power technology, to make it safer, more efficient, and may be more modular, to design new houses with more energy autonomy, etc.
    This is a race with no rules, you do not find the best at the top, you find the ones who can push their way into nicely paid positions by any means possible but honesty. By creating a non-existing problem and then claiming the they are the only ones who can solve it. Examples of this kind of things are too many to remember, almost any "movement" ends being like that.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: StephenW
    Upvote 0

    cjd

    Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    16,002
    3,432
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    The proper answer? the ONLY answer is that CO2 do not cause global warming.
    Ok that's one answer, and the obvious one. And your furter explanation was useful.

    However, my question was something like 'given that there's an obvious objection to the C02 level issue (ie 'it should be hotter') - what is the IPCC's explanation?'
     
    Upvote 0
    You do not pay pseudo-scientists to create biased reports
    Pseudo-science is a good term.

    One of the shockers coming to light in the emails leaked from CRU is that no one can understand the code used to model and predict temperatures. Some poor guy, it seems, spent years trying to make sense of it. There are arbitrary tuning parameters in there based on nothing meaningful in the real world but intended solely for researchers to change the output. The famous hockey stick graph is based on this code. The IPCC reports are based on this code. This probably means that most of the predictions we read about in the popular press are based on this code. It's quite staggering that so many intelligent people have let themselves get into such a pickle.

    This isn't just pseudo-science; it's really bad pseudo-science.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0

    cjd

    Business Member
  • Nov 23, 2005
    16,002
    3,432
    www.voipfone.co.uk
    Pseudo-science is a good term. One of the shockers coming to light in these leaked emails from CRU is that no one can understand the code used to model and predict temperatures. Some poor guy complained that error messages appear but the program just keeps running. There are arbitrary tuning parameters based on nothing but the need to provide researchers with the ability to change the slopes and trends. The famous hockey stick graph is based on this code. The IPCC reports are based on this code. This probably means that most of the predictions we read about in the popular press is based on this code. It's quite staggering that so many intelligent people have let themselves get into such a pickle. This isn't just pseudo-science, it's really bad science.

    This is cobblers. I hear this sort of moaning every day from my own programmers - every coder complains about every other coder's code. It's what they do and it's perfectly normal; they're just built that way.
     
    Upvote 0
    Just to follow up my comment about the code used for climate modelling, here's an excerpt quoted from CBS News.

    As the leaked messages found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

    One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."

    Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"
     
    Upvote 0
    This is cobblers. I hear this sort of moaning every day from my own programmers - every coder complains about every other coder's code. It's what they do and it's perfectly normal; they're just built that way.
    You are kidding me, right? I've worked for software companies for most of my life. My three years working on my PhD was largely computer modelling, and I inherited some code from another researcher. Some absolute basics:

    1) You document the code so others can understand it
    2) You handle error conditions so they don't undermine results
    3) You don't add arbitrary parameters so you can fiddle the output

    These are real basics. Then there are other rules, and one wonders how these were handled:

    4) When relying on random numbers to account for probability, you must use a formal random number generator that can guarantee trillions of unique and provable random numbers (which is quite difficult).

    5) Beware of multiplying very small numbers by very large numbers (which is how I once predicted a phase change that doesn't exist!?).

    Doesn't it worry you when a professional programmer asks "why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one"? For goodness sakes, governments around the world want to spend trillions of pounds, restrict our freedoms, impose draconian taxes on individuals and corporations, put thousands of companies out of business, and force millions to lose their jobs based on this computer model!
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0
    what is the IPCC's explanation?'
    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.
     
    Upvote 0
    Ok that's one answer, and the obvious one. And your furter explanation was useful.

    However, my question was something like 'given that there's an obvious objection to the C02 level issue (ie 'it should be hotter') - what is the IPCC's explanation?'

    I had a look at a UN website that reports on the information of the IPCC (http://www.grida.no) and I had a look at the material they have, plots and so on. Some of them similar or the same as the ones we showed here. The common theme they have is that they all seem to end in 2000, we are 9 years ahead.
    Other make a nice reading, for instance: http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3076.aspx
    The predicted evolution of temperatures, the best case scenario, green line, overshoots the current temperatures grossly, so I can only imagine that all the lines now need correction.

    As for what you say to Steve about the code, the code needs to be readable. I have been doing loads of coding for other models, in another field, but the code needs to be presentable, otherwise how can anyone check on it? And, for my experience, I understand very well what they say about the parameters. Parameters also need to have an physical origin, some thing to attach the parameter to, an explanation, a representation. At the end we want to know how, for that you need to have a way to translate those parameters into depictions of something. Is not just a question in nice typing or something like that. Also the model needs to be have numerical checks. So, to have something to test it against.
    For instance, past climate. The problem with "over parametrizing" is that you can have a situation where no a set of values for the parameters can reproduce the past, but rather a whole bunch of different choices for the values of the parameters that all can reproduce the past, this is very easily done in any model that has more degrees of freedon than really needed.
    Those extra degrees of freedom then can be used to predic what ever you had in mind.
    This kind of discusion is not unique to this field and is very common when studying complex systems where numerical analysis, nowadays always done with computers, are the only way to obtain a result.
     
    Upvote 0
    Also the model needs to be have numerical checks. So, to have something to test it against.
    For example, when building a climate modelling program, the use of random input data should reveal no increase in global temperatures, right? Guess when random input data produces in the model underlying IPCC's conclusions? A hockey stick! Indeed, there was a report quite a while ago (sorry for not having the reference) that concluded that ANY input data used in their model would show an increase in global temperatures.
     
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles

    Join UK Business Forums for free business advice