ChatterBank1 min ago
forget global warming
global weirding is on its way
.
.
http://www.guardian.c...ooding-droughts-fires
.
.
weirding makes more sense
.
.
http://www.guardian.c...ooding-droughts-fires
.
.
weirding makes more sense
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DrFilth. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
[Two Part Answer]
I agree that there is evidence to support both sides, AP. But it is not incontrovertible evidence and a huge amount of the findings are based on highly speculative assumptions.
The difficulty I have is that evidence of man-made global warming (MMGW) is now presented as absolute fact. Children at primary school are being presented with these “facts” which they naturally accept without question and adults are expected to do likewise. Personally I’m not stating anything as fact. As you rightly say, it’s only my opinion. I’m open to persuasion but have thus far not been convinced.
I’m sorry if you find the term “heretics” inappropriate but that’s how people who do not believe in MMGW are now viewed – as pariahs, non-believers. It’s not the support of MMGW I describe as folly. It’s the ridiculous reaction to the allegation that has occurred in the UK. “Change your lightbulbs, cover the country with useless wind turbines, don’t use so many plastic bags, don’t let the cows fart too much, don’t drive your car, better still buy an electric car (which shifts the pollution from one place to another), don’t travel by aircraft” and so it goes on. All this might or might not reduce the UK’s emissions by 50% (though it won’t if shopkeepers continue to heat the street) and if it does that will knock global emissions down by 1% - sorted then (provided China stops building power stations).
I agree that there is evidence to support both sides, AP. But it is not incontrovertible evidence and a huge amount of the findings are based on highly speculative assumptions.
The difficulty I have is that evidence of man-made global warming (MMGW) is now presented as absolute fact. Children at primary school are being presented with these “facts” which they naturally accept without question and adults are expected to do likewise. Personally I’m not stating anything as fact. As you rightly say, it’s only my opinion. I’m open to persuasion but have thus far not been convinced.
I’m sorry if you find the term “heretics” inappropriate but that’s how people who do not believe in MMGW are now viewed – as pariahs, non-believers. It’s not the support of MMGW I describe as folly. It’s the ridiculous reaction to the allegation that has occurred in the UK. “Change your lightbulbs, cover the country with useless wind turbines, don’t use so many plastic bags, don’t let the cows fart too much, don’t drive your car, better still buy an electric car (which shifts the pollution from one place to another), don’t travel by aircraft” and so it goes on. All this might or might not reduce the UK’s emissions by 50% (though it won’t if shopkeepers continue to heat the street) and if it does that will knock global emissions down by 1% - sorted then (provided China stops building power stations).
[Part Two]
I’m afraid I take offence at your suggestion that I’m dictating anything. I’m doing nothing of the sort, wouldn’t dream of it. All I’m asking is for a bit of common sense to prevail and for the government to stop ripping off the electorate by getting them to fund useless projects which are ostensibly designed to influence things over which we have no control.
Personally I’ve given up being polite when confronted by Climate Change fanatics. They do not see the matter as one of opinion open to debate but one of fact against which there must be no dissent. It wouldn’t bother me if it such an attitude didn’t affect me. But it does and it’s getting on my nerves.
I’m afraid I take offence at your suggestion that I’m dictating anything. I’m doing nothing of the sort, wouldn’t dream of it. All I’m asking is for a bit of common sense to prevail and for the government to stop ripping off the electorate by getting them to fund useless projects which are ostensibly designed to influence things over which we have no control.
Personally I’ve given up being polite when confronted by Climate Change fanatics. They do not see the matter as one of opinion open to debate but one of fact against which there must be no dissent. It wouldn’t bother me if it such an attitude didn’t affect me. But it does and it’s getting on my nerves.
The fact that certain people who believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change [ACC] call those who aren't convinced by the evidence, “deniers”, tells you a great deal about the thinking of these particular people.
The hypothesis of ACC is not a religion. There is very well researched evidence on both sides of this scientific argument and yet it has been brought down to the gutter level by the media and by some people who, for whatever reason, see this as a moral standpoint.
It is not a moral standpoint; it is a scientific debate.
Moronic epithets such as 'deniers' and 'heretics' have no place in science and those who use them as weapons to discredit their opponents are guilty of a gross misuse of logic, language and common decency.
The OP posted a link to the Guardian article which in a nutshell said that extreme weather events such as tornadoes will increase due to ACC. Clearly John Vidal hasn't bothered to read the most recent IPCC report which states quite categorically, “There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms.”; and the US Climate Change Synthesis Report SAP 3.3 that concludes, “... The data used to examine changes in the frequency and severity of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms are inadequate to make definitive statements about actual changes.”
The hypothesis of ACC is not a religion. There is very well researched evidence on both sides of this scientific argument and yet it has been brought down to the gutter level by the media and by some people who, for whatever reason, see this as a moral standpoint.
It is not a moral standpoint; it is a scientific debate.
Moronic epithets such as 'deniers' and 'heretics' have no place in science and those who use them as weapons to discredit their opponents are guilty of a gross misuse of logic, language and common decency.
The OP posted a link to the Guardian article which in a nutshell said that extreme weather events such as tornadoes will increase due to ACC. Clearly John Vidal hasn't bothered to read the most recent IPCC report which states quite categorically, “There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms.”; and the US Climate Change Synthesis Report SAP 3.3 that concludes, “... The data used to examine changes in the frequency and severity of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms are inadequate to make definitive statements about actual changes.”
Oh dear, wish I hadn't come in here....... Okay lets see, I'm a heretic, I'm also a scientist sitting at his desk in a well known weather services providers office...... ;-)
Answer the following:
What prompts governments to invest in IPCC and AGW research?
Why would there be a massive government cover up of missing emails from a AGW research unit?
Why would that research unit stop grants to researchwers who were finding data to countermand their finding and fly in the face of the IPCC?
Why does no-one ever talk about the MOST abundant Greehouse Gas as a problem?
Why do governments and IPCC slam opposing research?
Why did the architects of AGW dismiss over 70% of the base data they used to model AGW when it didn't fit the results........
Why do IPCC never tell you that if we didn't climate change we'd forever exist at a temperature around 12°C lower than we live at now??
Answers on a postcard
Answer the following:
What prompts governments to invest in IPCC and AGW research?
Why would there be a massive government cover up of missing emails from a AGW research unit?
Why would that research unit stop grants to researchwers who were finding data to countermand their finding and fly in the face of the IPCC?
Why does no-one ever talk about the MOST abundant Greehouse Gas as a problem?
Why do governments and IPCC slam opposing research?
Why did the architects of AGW dismiss over 70% of the base data they used to model AGW when it didn't fit the results........
Why do IPCC never tell you that if we didn't climate change we'd forever exist at a temperature around 12°C lower than we live at now??
Answers on a postcard
Exactly what sort of a scientist are you slapshot?
I'm surprised because you ask why does no one ever talk of the most abundant Greenhouse gas as a problem?
The most abundant Greenhouse gas is water vapour (as I'm sure you know)
When water vapour concentrations get too high there's a very simple controlling mechanism that isn't there for CO2 or Methane
It's called rain
Most Scientists I know are aware of that
Can't fit the answers to all the others on a postcard
I'm surprised because you ask why does no one ever talk of the most abundant Greenhouse gas as a problem?
The most abundant Greenhouse gas is water vapour (as I'm sure you know)
When water vapour concentrations get too high there's a very simple controlling mechanism that isn't there for CO2 or Methane
It's called rain
Most Scientists I know are aware of that
Can't fit the answers to all the others on a postcard
The evidence for man made contributions to global warming is entirely theoretical. Although data has been presented as fact by the pro lobby every attempt at proving thier theorys conclusivly has come up short. This isn't my opinion a little reading on the internet will show this as fact.
There is much hand ringing by the greens that something must be done now and for this we are paying through the nose £2 for a chuffin light bulb??
http://www.theaustral...n59niix-1225938436693
There is much hand ringing by the greens that something must be done now and for this we are paying through the nose £2 for a chuffin light bulb??
http://www.theaustral...n59niix-1225938436693
No worries, looks like the non-believers have a reprieve; won't need to say, "Whoops" for ages yet. Will probably be long gone by then.
http://cosmiclog.msnb...-hints-at-a-big-chill
Ah light bulbs and other nonsense. I'm unsure who gains by these draconian laws imposed on us, certainly not the planet, nor the people that's for sure, but someone surely must, and any excuse to push folk around is fair game eh ?
http://cosmiclog.msnb...-hints-at-a-big-chill
Ah light bulbs and other nonsense. I'm unsure who gains by these draconian laws imposed on us, certainly not the planet, nor the people that's for sure, but someone surely must, and any excuse to push folk around is fair game eh ?
I think, Dave if you're forced into citing an 87 year old physicist to back your case you must be getting desperate.
I would be interested to know why sceptics think the climate is changing - If you don't think it is then there's no point in talking because there's a mountain of evidence from satellites down to show it is.
The sun's output is much the same - slightly declining if anything since the 80s,
(The higher Stratosphere is cooling slightly whilst the lower Troposhere is warming)
Volcanic activity is not much different and stands at about 1% of Fossil fuel contribution:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.go...ch/2007/07_02_15.html
Cosmic ray effects are 100 times too small to explain observations
http://adsabs.harvard...s/2009GeoRL..3609820P
So if it's not coming from humans I'd be interested to hear your theories in where you do think it's coming from
I would be interested to know why sceptics think the climate is changing - If you don't think it is then there's no point in talking because there's a mountain of evidence from satellites down to show it is.
The sun's output is much the same - slightly declining if anything since the 80s,
(The higher Stratosphere is cooling slightly whilst the lower Troposhere is warming)
Volcanic activity is not much different and stands at about 1% of Fossil fuel contribution:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.go...ch/2007/07_02_15.html
Cosmic ray effects are 100 times too small to explain observations
http://adsabs.harvard...s/2009GeoRL..3609820P
So if it's not coming from humans I'd be interested to hear your theories in where you do think it's coming from
Jake, where have you been ????
I’m not going to get too bogged down in this because I’ve got to go and wash my hair. But I understood (and believe it is widely accepted) that man is responsible for only 4% of greenhouse gases, with the rest coming from volcanic activity, reactions in the sea and animals farting.
Obviously a small change in that 96% will be far greater (in absolute terms) that a large change in the 4%.
I’m not going to get too bogged down in this because I’ve got to go and wash my hair. But I understood (and believe it is widely accepted) that man is responsible for only 4% of greenhouse gases, with the rest coming from volcanic activity, reactions in the sea and animals farting.
Obviously a small change in that 96% will be far greater (in absolute terms) that a large change in the 4%.
Jake-the-peg - “So if it's [global warming/climate change] not coming from humans I'd be interested to hear your theories in where you do think it's coming from...”
Natural variation due mostly (but not entirely) to solar radiation. The self-evident proof? Climate history derived from (amongst other things) ice cores.
If you are so utterly convinced that humans are causing the temperature to change either up or down, how do you explain the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period? Do you think that the Hockey Stick graph, that neatly and ungraciously edits these important and well documented climatic periods out of history, is the truth?
Natural variation due mostly (but not entirely) to solar radiation. The self-evident proof? Climate history derived from (amongst other things) ice cores.
If you are so utterly convinced that humans are causing the temperature to change either up or down, how do you explain the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period? Do you think that the Hockey Stick graph, that neatly and ungraciously edits these important and well documented climatic periods out of history, is the truth?
Continued...
How do you explain that approximately 15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago (as the earth was coming out of the last Ice Age), ice sheets all over the globe melted and the sea levels rose? About 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice left Scandinavia and about 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice left Canada. This period of warming is neither stable nor is it the same everywhere and there are periods when mountain glaciers advance and periods when they retreat. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to
place, with some areas affected while others are not. The overall trend is for warming but it is globally uneven.
How do you explain that approximately 6,000 years ago, the temperature on earth was about 3 degrees warmer than currently? The Arctic ocean was ice-free and the mountain glaciers didn't exist from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, nor did they exist in the Rocky Mountains in the USA and Canada. The ocean back then was about three meters higher than today. Most of the present desert of the Sahara had a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species.
How do YOU explain that?
How do you explain that approximately 15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago (as the earth was coming out of the last Ice Age), ice sheets all over the globe melted and the sea levels rose? About 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice left Scandinavia and about 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice left Canada. This period of warming is neither stable nor is it the same everywhere and there are periods when mountain glaciers advance and periods when they retreat. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to
place, with some areas affected while others are not. The overall trend is for warming but it is globally uneven.
How do you explain that approximately 6,000 years ago, the temperature on earth was about 3 degrees warmer than currently? The Arctic ocean was ice-free and the mountain glaciers didn't exist from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, nor did they exist in the Rocky Mountains in the USA and Canada. The ocean back then was about three meters higher than today. Most of the present desert of the Sahara had a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species.
How do YOU explain that?
Birdie you're right - past variations in the suns output have warmed the Earth.
This time is different
This time the sun is not warming
Do you really think that all the scientific reseach would have missed the obvious possibility that the sun was causing the effect?
As for the conspiracy theory, any scientific institute that could show that you're right would immediately generate huge kudos, fame and wealth for itself.
The incentive in Science is always to show someone else is wrong.
What would it take to convince you you are wrong?
If there's nothing that would convince you then it's simply a matter of faith not science.
Find me two or three major scientific institutes that think it's wrong and I'll reconsider my position.
What will it take to make you reconsider yours?
This time is different
This time the sun is not warming
Do you really think that all the scientific reseach would have missed the obvious possibility that the sun was causing the effect?
As for the conspiracy theory, any scientific institute that could show that you're right would immediately generate huge kudos, fame and wealth for itself.
The incentive in Science is always to show someone else is wrong.
What would it take to convince you you are wrong?
If there's nothing that would convince you then it's simply a matter of faith not science.
Find me two or three major scientific institutes that think it's wrong and I'll reconsider my position.
What will it take to make you reconsider yours?
Jake -
I don't have the time to respond to all your specific questions as it will be a very long post indeed. However, you make some very valid and interesting points which I will address tomorrow night.
Suffice to say that when we look at historic climatic conditions on earth on a geological time-scale, we see much evidence of cooling and warming over many millennia. Not a single one of these previous warm/cold periods has been caused by human activity. It is fair and accurate to say that no one today knows with any degree of certainty why the earth has cooled and warmed previously. No one knows what brought about the onset of the last ice age (or any previous ice age) and no one knows why it (or any other) abruptly ended.
As no one knows the reason for this tendency for the earth to oscillate between these two states, there is a demonstrable lack of knowledge on what drives climate. Until we fully understand the mechanisms that drive it, we cannot predict, with any degree of accuracy, future climate. This is not conjecture - it is fact. To suggest otherwise is patently absurd.
For anyone to confidently claim that CO2, and more to the point, man-made CO2, is a 'driver' of climate is delusional. Especially when ice core data unequivocally reveals that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 lag behind global temperature rise by approximately 800 years; neatly demonstrating that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are a product of global warming rather than a cause of it.
As to why CO2 is seen as the major contributor to Climate Change, (aka. Global Warming) I shall address that tomorrow.
I don't have the time to respond to all your specific questions as it will be a very long post indeed. However, you make some very valid and interesting points which I will address tomorrow night.
Suffice to say that when we look at historic climatic conditions on earth on a geological time-scale, we see much evidence of cooling and warming over many millennia. Not a single one of these previous warm/cold periods has been caused by human activity. It is fair and accurate to say that no one today knows with any degree of certainty why the earth has cooled and warmed previously. No one knows what brought about the onset of the last ice age (or any previous ice age) and no one knows why it (or any other) abruptly ended.
As no one knows the reason for this tendency for the earth to oscillate between these two states, there is a demonstrable lack of knowledge on what drives climate. Until we fully understand the mechanisms that drive it, we cannot predict, with any degree of accuracy, future climate. This is not conjecture - it is fact. To suggest otherwise is patently absurd.
For anyone to confidently claim that CO2, and more to the point, man-made CO2, is a 'driver' of climate is delusional. Especially when ice core data unequivocally reveals that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 lag behind global temperature rise by approximately 800 years; neatly demonstrating that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are a product of global warming rather than a cause of it.
As to why CO2 is seen as the major contributor to Climate Change, (aka. Global Warming) I shall address that tomorrow.
Unfortunately, birdie, your efforts will be in vain.
Supporters of Man-Made Climate Change (MMCC) will tolerate no arguments against their cause. Their stock answer is that there is (apparently) no other explanation for climate change so it must be down to man. All other possible explanations are dismissed out of hand.
I’ve given up with logical argument. I’ve accepted that the supporters of MMCC cannot be persuaded that there is any other cause. What I’ve turned my attention to now is the ludicrous plans that governments have to combat the evil and to point out the similarity between their attitude and that of King Knud’s lackeys.
Supporters of Man-Made Climate Change (MMCC) will tolerate no arguments against their cause. Their stock answer is that there is (apparently) no other explanation for climate change so it must be down to man. All other possible explanations are dismissed out of hand.
I’ve given up with logical argument. I’ve accepted that the supporters of MMCC cannot be persuaded that there is any other cause. What I’ve turned my attention to now is the ludicrous plans that governments have to combat the evil and to point out the similarity between their attitude and that of King Knud’s lackeys.
A captain friend of mine who flies Boeing 777 says that in the last few years he has seen the coldest temperatures at altitude that he`s ever seen in 34 years of flying. The B777 flies higher than a lot of aircraft (40000 is fairly usual). He`s seen such low (-70 c ) temps that he`s had to go to a lower altitude to stop the fuel thickening and turning to gloop. How does that equate with global warming?
Judge -
I thought that at the time. However, I've spent the last few hours writing and editing a very long response to Jake's questions... but you're probably right – I'm just wasting my time. I shall save most of them for future use.
Rather than argue about why CO2 is seen as an terrible pollutant (which it patently isn't), I shall post this short piece on the economic reasons on the futility of trying to tackle this Chimera...
I thought that at the time. However, I've spent the last few hours writing and editing a very long response to Jake's questions... but you're probably right – I'm just wasting my time. I shall save most of them for future use.
Rather than argue about why CO2 is seen as an terrible pollutant (which it patently isn't), I shall post this short piece on the economic reasons on the futility of trying to tackle this Chimera...
Continued....
The real problem with ACC is an economic one. Even if climate change, man-made or otherwise, is going to cause catastrophic damage to the human race by instigating floods, famine and pestilence, the alternative is hardly a walk in the park either and may in fact be worse.
By all estimates, only severe reductions in CO2 emissions on a global scale will have any significant effect on climate. In order to achieve severe CO2 reductions, nations across the globe would have to dramatically alter their entire power generating infrastructure. Even in a good economic climate this would be effectively impossible due to the cost; in today's economic climate, well...
Even if the above changes could be made to the global economic infrastructure, the science is not clear what impact, if any, this would have on the climate of the earth.
The real problem with ACC is an economic one. Even if climate change, man-made or otherwise, is going to cause catastrophic damage to the human race by instigating floods, famine and pestilence, the alternative is hardly a walk in the park either and may in fact be worse.
By all estimates, only severe reductions in CO2 emissions on a global scale will have any significant effect on climate. In order to achieve severe CO2 reductions, nations across the globe would have to dramatically alter their entire power generating infrastructure. Even in a good economic climate this would be effectively impossible due to the cost; in today's economic climate, well...
Even if the above changes could be made to the global economic infrastructure, the science is not clear what impact, if any, this would have on the climate of the earth.
Continued...
I've argued before that the world cannot be run on wind, wave and solar in their present form. That is not to say that I am not in favour of them – I am. But right here and right now, they simply don't produce anything like enough electrical power with any reliability or sustainability. Like it or not, if we want reliable power so we can keep our lights and heating on in winter, we're stuck with fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
I have a question for you, Jake. Are you prepared to switch off your computer, your lights, your TV, etc. permanently? If you're not, then you are part of the problem (as you see it). Like an angry driver sitting in a queue of cars, who proclaims, “God, the traffic's terrible today!”, you disassociate yourself from the problem by seeing you and your own car as a discreet entity whilst all other vehicles and their drivers are seen as 'traffic'. Yet you are an intrinsic part of the problem as am I.
I've argued before that the world cannot be run on wind, wave and solar in their present form. That is not to say that I am not in favour of them – I am. But right here and right now, they simply don't produce anything like enough electrical power with any reliability or sustainability. Like it or not, if we want reliable power so we can keep our lights and heating on in winter, we're stuck with fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
I have a question for you, Jake. Are you prepared to switch off your computer, your lights, your TV, etc. permanently? If you're not, then you are part of the problem (as you see it). Like an angry driver sitting in a queue of cars, who proclaims, “God, the traffic's terrible today!”, you disassociate yourself from the problem by seeing you and your own car as a discreet entity whilst all other vehicles and their drivers are seen as 'traffic'. Yet you are an intrinsic part of the problem as am I.
