Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Has UK warming now gone up to Stage 3


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
I don't agree with anybody arguing that GW exists, like Mondy i really see no reason of to why this planet earth of ours can't warm up of course there is some correlation between CO 2 levels going up and amounts of cars in the world but you could also say well since the 80's PC's have risen throughout the world so that must be global warming with all the energy they use.

I just don't see it and no i have no kids GW but i can't as of yet but when i can i will and i will still say the same thing....like the majority of Great Britain i will only do what the government 'forces' us to do because we don't have much choice and as to Lady-P your 'well it's not our fault' arguement is playground like, they can blame us i don't care i'm just not siding with an arguement people are yet to show me is viable....don't our CET's go back to the 1600's btw? i can't find them anyway all i can find is the last 107 years.

Btw more like a communist state not fascist, i see no genocide and race superioriority in Britan.

p.s don't shout :D

DB, just for you, presumably you can be bothered to look at it:

post-364-1170532921_thumb.png

post-364-1170532943_thumb.png

post-364-1170534213_thumb.png

Whoaaaoooy horse!

I witness two types of sceptic;

1/' For the sake of argument 'what if...''

2/ 'It ain't happening and I'll tell you why......'

I don't feel that C.Bob is the latter!

I have experienced him as a guy who seeks for you to prove your stance as more than 'because he said it....' and only by knowing enough 'stuff' to convince an 'enlightened type' are you ever going to pass his/your 'test'.

This is good (I feel) for to not flex those 'muscles' once in a while will let them get flabby!

Thanks for the workout C.Bob!

G-W, you may well have experienced C-B that way, but his response to my generalisation is, so far as I can see, without substance. I stand by my argument, if he can show me where on this thread he has presented a fact or argument of substance then I will rescind my comment in his case.

It's all very well saying he's someone who sets a high bar in terms of being convinced: any old fool can say "no, I don't agree". What differentiates the smarter ones, and the point at which I might pay more heed, is when, as I keep saying, they either deconstruct the facts that others put forward and explain the error, or else put forwards fact based arguments of their own to the contrary.

And I also keep asking - even if I accept their scepticism as being with foundation (the recurrent undertow is political" the "why should I be dictated to" / "why should I give up my freedoms" - it leaks out repeatedly from Mondy and d-b in particular) - at what point might they start accepting GW (d- :D / AGW (mondy). If you refuse to set sensible bar then I am reminded of Arthur Scargill's famous decision to installhimself as leader of the NUM without ever having to face any future election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
In answer to point 1) The earth has had many warmer phases in the past, it's true. The difference this time it would seem is the comparitive speed of change (very rapid in climate terms) which suggests either man made interference, or excessive natural warming or both. Possibly both.

Point 2) is much easier to answer. Our Government don't give a rat's ass what anybody else does but by being first in the chair they can claim

...

ukm: agree with all of that. My one fear for action against GW is that the west will use it as a hammer to challenge the tiger economies of the east. My other fear is that those same economies will continue to pollute irrespective.

Again, Garret Hardin argued all of this, and much more, thirty years ago:

http://www.caledonia.org.uk/commonweal/tragedy.html

and for the continuing sceptics I cannot resist his follow-up, see the paragraph mid way down page 2 about humanity's conscience.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Hardin%27...art=10&sa=N

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

I applaud your counter, SF.

Once you're off your high horse on this thread, do redirect yourself to the latest IPCC thread where you will see my overall feelings.

Regarding posting links/urls/proof [from my argument], you fine well know, over many a thread like this, i have suppiled ammunition. Of course, it's very easy to dismiss said ammunition when you have very few sceptics and approx 90% believers.

I'm presuming you have read the latest IPCC report? Or don't you need to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert
Most of you don't know how to argue or debate; you simply contiue to parrot the same old rubbish.

May one be allowed to point you in the direction of these links?...

http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://www.john-daly.com/

Incidentally, in 1998, the German Meteorologisches Institut Universitat Hamburg and Forschungszentium (you can google if you like) surveyed a wide spectrum of climatological scientists.

67% of Canadian climate scientists "rejected the notion that any warming due to human activity is occurring", along with 87% of German climate scientists, and 97% of American climate scientists.

The 'famous' letter on Global Warming published a few years ago with all of those signatures of scientists was filled with names from biology, archeology, genetics, etc... but less than 10% were climate scientists, and they represented less than 10% of the climate scientists who had been personally asked to sign (only a small percentage were asked, as the majority of the field had already publicly stated their disbelief)..

Much has been made of the .6C rise on global average temperature in the 20th century, but ask yourself this, why did that occur between 1890 and 1940, when 80% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 occurred after 1940?

Global average temperature dropped .2C between 1940 and 1970, and rose less than .3C by 1990, to less than 1 C above 1940 - and has stabilized since then.

As an aside, 1975* - Science magazine on March 1, Newsweek on April 28, and Wildlife International in July all declared that the Earth's climate was cooling down, and that we were going to enter a new ice age caused by pollution... especially carbon emissions?

Hardly sounds like CO2 is really what it is claimed to be, now is it?

Those scientists who actually make their living studying the climate agree there is nothing man is doing that is really affecting global climate in any way and that the warming is a result of natural processes we have no control over.

I feel i'm repeating myself by mentioning 'natural cycles'...

Specifically, by the early 1990s the general consensus among the climate scientists was that the temperature changes were directly linked to the solar sunspot cycle. [there's that word cycle again]!

I guess we need to build a vast set of orbital shutters to regulate the planet's exposure levels, eh?

Ps * i wasn't born in 1975, but i've enough brain to 'go find historical data'.

Edited by Mondy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Hi, Mondy.

We've discussed your sources before, so if you don't mind, I won't repeat my opinion of them or their arguments.

From where does the claim come that most of the measured GW was before 1940? Or that temperatures have stabilised since 1940? You must be quoting someone lese here without looking, because I know that you know this is errant nonsense, as any cursory glance at a graph or dataset of temperature will clearly show.

Likewise, the comment about CO2 levels. I know that you know about system lag, which is the simple response to this question and requires no further explanation.

The drop in GAT from the '40s was due to aerosols, etc. The climate has been catching up since the '70s. The climate wopuld have become even warmer if there hadn't been so much stuff in the air.

The ice age in the '70s drivel has now been repeated for about the 100th time. Does nobody actually read other people's posts?

I don't know which scientists you are referring to near the end. Evidently, the 2500+ who prepared material for the IPCC and earn a living from climate science do believe that man is affecting the climate and that natural processes don't explain the warming. It says so in the report.

Time and time again, people bring out the 'solar' expanation, and time and time again, explanations and links are provided, often to the core research papers, which demonstrate that this explanation does not work; the numbers don't, nor will they ever, add up. The same goes for cosmic rays, tectonic plates, and other 'natural' explanations. If there is a lot of evidence that the warming is due to CO2, and no evidence that it is due to changes in solar activity/irradiance, only one reasonable conclusion can be reached.

The last question I would ask is why you, of all people, are simply repeating the same old tired arguments which have been doing the rounds for years and which have been shown, time and time again, to be wrong? I am sure that you don't give them any credence, so why bring them up again?

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert
I am sure that you don't give them any credence, so why bring them up again?

Simple really, i'm not a believer in GW nor likely to be and IMHO, reading through the latest on the other threads (of which there are now too many all becoming conflicting), i'd rather stick to my guns (perhaps wrongly in your or other peoples eyes), but no matter...

Again, i refuse to accept or believe the latest report. Through time, you or I will be proved right or wrong.

As SF says, perhaps i do bury my head in the snow....can't see anything wrong with that as long as you explain why. I have. Is it too much to ask others to at least accept that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
  • Weather Preferences: Any Extreme
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
Simple really, i'm not a believer in GW nor likely to be and IMHO, reading through the latest on the other threads (of which there are now too many all becoming conflicting), i'd rather stick to my guns (perhaps wrongly in your or other peoples eyes), but no matter...

Again, i refuse to accept or believe the latest report. Through time, you or I will be proved right or wrong.

As SF says, perhaps i do bury my head in the snow....can't see anything wrong with that as long as you explain why. I have. Is it too much to ask others to at least accept that?

How dare you. Expect to have your posts deleted. 8)8) 8)

Nothing wrong with taking the opposit side. If everyone agreed there wouldn't be any need to discuss anything would there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Simple really, i'm not a believer in GW nor likely to be and IMHO, reading through the latest on the other threads (of which there are now too many all becoming conflicting), i'd rather stick to my guns (perhaps wrongly in your or other peoples eyes), but no matter...

Again, i refuse to accept or believe the latest report. Through time, you or I will be proved right or wrong.

As SF says, perhaps i do bury my head in the snow....can't see anything wrong with that as long as you explain why. I have. Is it too much to ask others to at least accept that?

I agree that the threads are getting a bit confusing. Serves us right for being gobby, I suppose! As for the rest of your reply; of course you have the right not to accept or believe the report, but you don't appear to have a reason why, except that this has always been your opinion and so you're sticking to it (or have I misunderstood you?). I still don't understand, though, why you should put in a comment like 'temperatures have stabilised since 1940'. You know this is false, so why say it?

regards,

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
May one be allowed to point you in the direction of these links?...

http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://www.john-daly.com/

Incidentally, in 1998, the German Meteorologisches Institut Universitat Hamburg and Forschungszentium (you can google if you like) surveyed a wide spectrum of climatological scientists.

67% of Canadian climate scientists "rejected the notion that any warming due to human activity is occurring", along with 87% of German climate scientists, and 97% of American climate scientists.

The 'famous' letter on Global Warming published a few years ago with all of those signatures of scientists was filled with names from biology, archeology, genetics, etc... but less than 10% were climate scientists, and they represented less than 10% of the climate scientists who had been personally asked to sign (only a small percentage were asked, as the majority of the field had already publicly stated their disbelief)..

Much has been made of the .6C rise on global average temperature in the 20th century, but ask yourself this, why did that occur between 1890 and 1940, when 80% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 occurred after 1940?

Global average temperature dropped .2C between 1940 and 1970, and rose less than .3C by 1990, to less than 1 C above 1940 - and has stabilized since then.

As an aside, 1975* - Science magazine on March 1, Newsweek on April 28, and Wildlife International in July all declared that the Earth's climate was cooling down, and that we were going to enter a new ice age caused by pollution... especially carbon emissions?

Hardly sounds like CO2 is really what it is claimed to be, now is it?

Those scientists who actually make their living studying the climate agree there is nothing man is doing that is really affecting global climate in any way and that the warming is a result of natural processes we have no control over.

I feel i'm repeating myself by mentioning 'natural cycles'...

Specifically, by the early 1990s the general consensus among the climate scientists was that the temperature changes were directly linked to the solar sunspot cycle. [there's that word cycle again]!

I guess we need to build a vast set of orbital shutters to regulate the planet's exposure levels, eh?

Ps * i wasn't born in 1975, but i've enough brain to 'go find historical data'.

Mondy:

10 years is along time in the debate on GW. Thirty years is an eternity. I wrote a thesis in 1986 titled "are the UK's winters becoming more continental in nature?"; the evidence at the time was slightly in favour. To suggest such a thesis now would be a waste of time.

I'm not sure why we're talking about global temperatures - the thread has nothing to do with global temperatures - however since you bring it up:

By my reckoning the rise in global temps since around 1900 is 1C, not 0.6C, and as the diagram below shows any claim that temperatures have stabilised since 1990 is fatuous. By my reading temsp rose about 0.5C from 1900 to 1940, dipped slightly then recovered to the same point by 1980, and since then have climbed another 0.5C. That rate of climb is comfortably inside the IPCCs current band for global change over the next century.

I don't know which famousletter you're referring to; heaven forbid that it's the Oregon Petition which was actually worded in a way that Arthur Scargill couldn't have bettered. It was commonly taken to be a petition arguing against warming; it wasn't - it was arguing that any warming would not have detrimental effects for the US: this latter is a wholly different argument. That the petition was signed by scientists of many disciplines, laymen, and by (as was proven) a whole load of people who were nothing other than figments of somebody's imagination, is a by-the-by.

Time and again various of us make the point. There are many factors influencing climate. GW can still be ongoing even if the earth is apparently cooling, just like somebody with cancer can appear to be getting better, just like a business with strong sales can still be losing money. It is equally possible that some of the current warming is background warming.

I haven't checked back, but assuming that you haven't yet answered, will you ever answer my question: at what point, if ever, will you accept AGW?

---

sorry, forgot the diagram...

post-364-1170554649_thumb.png

Edited by Stratos Ferric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
May one be allowed to point you in the direction of these links?...

http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://www.john-daly.com/

...

Mondy:

So, I go see the McLean page. Pick a link on the left...comon beliefs; 8 statements that are rhetorical rebuttals, though like much of what you and others write theres NO data. hat;'s the problem with the internet and these fora, people can say things, even assert them in strong and compelling terms, and the lazy believer is taken in. I am drawn then to the analysis of global temps and the statement that 1997-98 has yet to be beaten.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

...would appear to disagree, though Hadley does not. This, however, is atrocious science. To argue that the climate isnot warming because 1997 has not been beaten is somehow to assert that warming must be a year on year occurrence. The natural variability in climate from year to year has ALWAYS been biger than the trend over short periods, and that is always going to be the case - even a rudimentary knowledge of maths would enable that to be proven. If in five or ten years the global trend is back down then McLean may have a point. I'm not sure his third point stack up either, but that's a minor point.

And I rather like this lot...

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/let...een_discounted/

Mixed responses to McLean's rantings down in his homeland - interestingly they mirror much of what we see on here. I rather like the respondent about half way down the page making the point about what he'd do if he were the captain of a sinking ship: a point I have often made - if there's any doubt atall oughtn't we to be doing something?

I thne go and check Mclean here...

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2wee...0060925_09.html

To suggest that his analysis is selective is to be hugely generous to a man who clearly cannot feel the pull of his own blinkers. And quite apart from his inability to see clear trends - and hia audacity in providing graphs that refute what he is saying (e.gh. no decline in anual arctic ice in the lastten years) he is overlooking the other studies showing that the ice is not only shrinking, but thinning. The apparent reduction in size of a sphere is always slowest at the start because the thickness lost for a given volume of ice is far less than when the sphere is smaller - rather like unwinding a ball of string, or a roll of sellotape.

All of these sites Mondy are blinkered; show me a site that is taking a balanced view and which is then coming down with the balance of evidence suggesting cooling and I will start to be swayed, but there aren't any. There are no reliable sceptics that I've been shown who bring with them balance.

And since I think you mentioned Gummersbach... this from McLean's own notes at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3097

One sensation of the Gummersbach conference was the announcement that out of 500 European climate researchers surveyed, 25 per cent still doubt whether most of the warming during the last 150 years can be attributed to human activities and CO2 emissions. So much for the supposed consensus on global warming among climate scientists. So much also for claims that only a tiny minority are sceptical.

Let me play that back: in other words 75% of scientists DID NOT refute man's role in warming, and the other 25% wen't only so far as to say man was probably not responsible for all od the warming. As I said to you earlier, and repeatedly ask you, how much evidence do you want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
G-W, you may well have experienced C-B that way, but his response to my generalisation is, so far as I can see, without substance. I stand by my argument, if he can show me where on this thread he has presented a fact or argument of substance then I will rescind my comment in his case.
If you're looking for a fact or argument I have presented on this thread then you may be looking for a while since I haven't contributed much to this thread. Here's my first comment on the thread:
I have to confess it does bug me a bit when people (not a dig at you, Don!) say things like this. If it hadn't been for the cold spell of last week...? But the monthly CET is an average temperature, and an average is taken over a period of time, taking all peaks and troughs into account - the fact is that the cold spell of last week did happen and, as a result, this January is unlikely (just) to be a record-breaking month. It's kind of like saying "I would have won the lottery last night if all of my numbers had come up." If they didn't then it's fairly irrelevant.

...which is factually accurate and makes the point that the "if only..." argument is flawed.

My second post on this thread:

Oh, forgot to say that (if anyone didn't know) the warmest recorded January CET was way back in 1916...

Another fact taken direct from the Hadley Centre.

My third post was intended to be a bitterly humourous response to a prior comment. My fourth post was a remark about the suggestion of polling who has kids, followed by my answer to that question. And then you made your sweeping generalisation.

So, I have presented facts on this thread (which didn't require links to other pages for clarification), and I have responded to others' comments. If you want to check my track record of factual analysis, counter-claims and counter-arguments then you can look for yourself - I have posted enough links and graphs over the last three months in various threads that your comment is completely without basis, and I'm not going to waste my time directing you to every single one - you can check my profile and see what I have posted and where in the relevant section.

Thanks.

C-Bob

PS - Thanks to Gray-Wolf for your comments. It's nice that some people on here appreciate what I have to say, even if they don't agree with all of it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

Don't worry C-Bob. There's a few cantankerous old men on here who take a dislike to anyone who remotely questions their reasoning. There also the condescending card played too.

I think i bailed out of here approx two weeks and stupidly came back to argue my case, evidently not very well ( :drinks: ).. It's time to enjoy this site again and not get caught up in slanging matches, which, on hindsight, i'm partly to blame!

haven't checked back, but assuming that you haven't yet answered, will you ever answer my question: at what point, if ever, will you accept AGW?

Ps, no, your not assuming - your presuming. And in answer to your question, which even a four year old would grasp, i will not accept it ever or Global Warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Heswall, Wirral
  • Weather Preferences: Summer: warm, humid, thundery. Winter: mild, stormy, some snow.
  • Location: Heswall, Wirral

:rolleyes: imagine if more intelligent lifeforms existed out there. They would take one visit to our planet and probably end up dying of laughter.

Say if, as the IPCC has said that the global temperature warmed 3C by the end of the century, and this caused problem on the Earth... should we incriminate them for attempting to undermine the truth, or if Global warming never occurred at all, should we who promised coming warmth be forever be made an efigy of a laughing stock?

The disagreement over the subject is really bringing out the true colours in humanity!

It's potentially an argument that could end humanity, by one way or another, desperation, ignorance or offence whatever, can you hear the humanity in yourselves.

It's the same everywhere, a little understanding is needed between everyone, or our children won't live out their full lives. What kind of species does that make us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
Don't worry C-Bob. There's a few cantankerous old men on here who take a dislike to anyone who remotely questions their reasoning. There also the condescending card played too.

I think i bailed out of here approx two weeks and stupidly came back to argue my case, evidently not very well ( :wallbash: ).. It's time to enjoy this site again and not get caught up in slanging matches, which, on hindsight, i'm partly to blame!

Ps, no, your not assuming - your presuming. And in answer to your question, which even a four year old would grasp, i will not accept it ever or Global Warming.

No, assume was right and chose deliberately: I was taking my point to be true. Presume would be taking a liberty. AS I had not sen you answer my question I certainly wasn't taking a liberty with my response.

It's no use coming back suggesting that somehow it's a failyre to argue your case well that is the issue here. For example last night you posted some absolutely fatuous observations which two of us immediately rebutted; you'd gain a lot more credit if you at least said "fair play, I was wrong", rather than sugesting that somehow it was a failure in the argument. Argument based on unsound premises is never going to stand robust challenge, nor should it.

C-B: yes, by one narrow definition you have presented facts, but in the panoply of leading edge thinking it's hardly progressing the subject of the thread is it? Sorry if I seem to be being harsh here, but the droning complaints of the sceptics become tiresome in the absence of any data and argument that is actually disproving the thesis. It's like the England fans finding an excuse after each and every world cup for not winning. Maybe the reality is that we're not good enough; maybe the reality is that there is no longer any cogent argument - certainly against warming (quite how Mondy can deny warming is beyond me - but I look forward to the arguments - certainly without believing the type of nonsense he posted last night, but then, as he's now stated, he's made his mind up already: it must be quite something in life to know all that there is to know such that you can have no doubt whatsoever that yours is the correct viewpoint and no other is worth listening to: many an unpleasant totalitarian regime has been constructed on precisely such open-mindedness, and I'm sure it serves us well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Hubberton up in the Pennines, 260m
  • Location: Hubberton up in the Pennines, 260m

Thanks SF, still don't see it i interpret the temp as dipping and rising forever gradually warming since records began and yes they have rose quickly in the last 17 or so years but i still won't budge....it may well drop but like i have said we will have to do what the government tell us to anyway...

...I'll tell you what, get the government to invest in a good transport infrastructure and i'll gladly get a train/tram/bus to my work, seriously i would and i am quite good with not using much power etc although i have a softspot for planes trains and automobiles. :p

And maybe Mondy isnt here to gain your credit SF, you seem like a true blairite.

Ciao :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
Thanks SF, still don't see it i interpret the temp as dipping and rising forever gradually warming since records began and yes they have rose quickly in the last 17 or so years but i still won't budge....it may well drop but like i have said we will have to do what the government tell us to anyway...

...I'll tell you what, get the government to invest in a good transport infrastructure and i'll gladly get a train/tram/bus to my work, seriously i would and i am quite good with not using much power etc although i have a softspot for planes trains and automobiles. :(

And maybe Mondy isnt here to gain your credit SF, you seem like a true blairite.

Ciao :)

Believe you me [re Blair], nothing could be further from the truth: you clearly have never visited my observations on the café in the past.

If you can look at those charts and honestly suggest you can't see it than I can't help you. We are beyond the bounds of anything in the measured record, and pretty much anything in the derived record, and you're suggesting that what we have at present is within the bounds of normality. Out of interest, are you, like Mondy, in the camp of "nothing will ever convince me"?

I can only divine from you both (given that both of you seem to drift into monologues about things you'd be willing to do if.../ taxes you'd reluctantly have to pay if...etc.) that the rationale is related to the fact that accepting that we're to blame may mean giving something up that we'd rather not. I don't really care about that; for the sake of understanding what goes on inside your heads I'm fascinated to understand how anyone can simply erect a barrier which is closed to all possibility other than the one they happen to be hanging desperately on to.

The irony is that it's precisely because ofpeople like you and Ondy that we'll end up with governmental force majeur. It's always the rich irony that in society the ones that moan loudest about the problem are often the ones contributing most to the problem in the first place.

Edited by Stratos Ferric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
C-B: yes, by one narrow definition you have presented facts, but in the panoply of leading edge thinking it's hardly progressing the subject of the thread is it? Sorry if I seem to be being harsh here, but the droning complaints of the sceptics become tiresome in the absence of any data and argument that is actually disproving the thesis.

By one narrow definition? I'm sorry, SF, but facts are facts, regardless of whether they are palatable or not. I may not have presented many facts that conclusively prove my case but nor, would I argue, have the AGW group. I agree that it's not exactly progressing the thread, but the point is that I do not feel the points I (and others) have raised have been adequately settled yet, but I don't constantly regurgitate the same old rubbish time and time again. I've never suggested that there is no warming going on, but I am yet to be convinced that mankind's activities are having a significant effect. A short while ago I posted a graph of sunspot cycles overlaid with global temps (a graph I made the effort to construct myself) which could be said to show some correlation, yet nobody seemed to make any significant arguments either for or against it. What more can I do to meet your standards?

Just because a majority share a viewpoint doesn't make the viewpoint correct. I will not say that I shall never be convinced of AGW, but I am yet to be convinced - if you want the same old arguments regurgitated ad nauseum then you could read the IPCC 4AR. :(

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
By one narrow definition? I'm sorry, SF, but facts are facts, regardless of whether they are palatable or not. I may not have presented many facts that conclusively prove my case but nor, would I argue, have the AGW group. I agree that it's not exactly progressing the thread, but the point is that I do not feel the points I (and others) have raised have been adequately settled yet, but I don't constantly regurgitate the same old rubbish time and time again. I've never suggested that there is no warming going on, but I am yet to be convinced that mankind's activities are having a significant effect. A short while ago I posted a graph of sunspot cycles overlaid with global temps (a graph I made the effort to construct myself) which could be said to show some correlation, yet nobody seemed to make any significant arguments either for or against it. What more can I do to meet your standards?

Just because a majority share a viewpoint doesn't make the viewpoint correct. I will not say that I shall never be convinced of AGW, but I am yet to be convinced - if you want the same old arguments regurgitated ad nauseum then you could read the IPCC 4AR. ;)

C-Bob

C-B, it's not palatability. As you yourself admit, you've hardly presented anything of substance in this particular thread. I have no particular taste in facts save that they be valid and robust, and that is the purpose of challenge so far as argument is concerned. There may be a correlation with sunspot activity...

http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/cs13/day1/03_Solanki.ppt

...makes a compelling case, though note that his study "excludes the last 25 years when climate has not matched sunspot activity" (slide 12).

Various of us keep saying, ad nauseum, that we are not claiming man is to blame for all warming: even the IPCC says precisely the same - it is just that it is hard to account for all of the sudden recent warming using known factors. There may be something unknown, but with the huge array of science and expertise now focussed on this issue I think it's highly unlikely that we wouldn't have found it by now unless it happens to be outside the bounds of known science. Not impossible, but improbable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
Those scientists who actually make their living studying the climate agree there is nothing man is doing that is really affecting global climate in any way and that the warming is a result of natural processes we have no control over.

...

Ps * i wasn't born in 1975, but i've enough brain to 'go find historical data'.

Staggering.

Mondy, I read your response in the IPCC thread, and it seems to boil down to this. You admit you are not qualified with any relevant expertise, yet you go on to argue that the whole premise behind the data based arguments put forward is flawed because scientists cannot reliably produce past patterns of change in temperature which might have been even more extreme than the ones we are seeing now. It is clearly a miracle ofhigh order that without any relevant qualification you can find a flaw that countless hundreds, I daresay thousands, of scientists are missing. Give that man a Nobel prize.

At least you are admitting, implicitly, thatwe are warming. That much is a step forward. Presumably you took your head out of the snow for some air this afternoon did you?

SF ;)

Don't jump the gun, read the rest of the forum.

d-b: indulge me: your point is what exactly? What is this remarkable thing that you would have me seek? What gun have I apparently jumped?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

I'm not going to make judgements as to who is 'right' and 'wrong' here, but I'll make two general points, one for each side.

One: there's a feeling that people should be entitled to their opinions of 'burying one's head in the sand', rather than having another opinion forced down their throat.

On the other, there's the fact that if a problem exists that people perpetuate, and people blind themselves to its existence because they don't want to be bothered doing anything about it, it becomes much harder to get anything done about it. For successful action to be taken, people need to open their minds to the possibility that 1) the problem might exist and 2) it might be desirable/possible to do something about it. I sense that 1) and 2) are both proving hard to crack, and thus I sympathise with Stratos's frustration.

While often, the phrases 'live and let live' and 'let others have their opinions' are appropriate, when it comes to blind acceptance of things that hinder progress in society, it's far less simple than that- for if those mantras are followed, the status quo tends to be maintained. (I especially think it's often important to challenge and question unsubstantiated views- as they're often at odds with the real truth)

Some people who deny AGW or are on the fence have indeed offered evidence to back up their assertions- and all credit to them for doing so- but I do agree with SF and P3 that many of the same arguments, that have been refuted previously, are trotted out almost ad nauseum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL

The reason why the "head in the snow" / "absolute refusal to believe and engage" argument bothers me is because this MIGHT be a matter of genuine importance to our futures, and our children's futures. As G-W posted previously, it would be interesting to see whether those avowed doubters have kids: looking at ages I guess not. They are also denied a perspective that I have in my life of having seen our climate in the UK change markedly. When I was in my twenties I had only the first senses of the fact that in life things do change.

If we were arguing about whether or not the UK should alter its stance on immigration, or whether Steve Mclaren should have been given the job of coaching England, then it wouldn't matter a jot.

The issue I have is threefold:

1 - the issue of climate change may just be the biggest issue in our lifetime. I'm not saying it will, but it may well;

2 - if it is, and the climate continues to warm, then we should be thinking hard about potential consequences, and whether those consequences are such that we ought to try to take proactive action to [try to] prevent them;

3 - adopting a stance of refusal to engage simply increases the risk of not being in a position to take action if required.

The current mindset has many parallels with the mood in the UK in the 30s. Churchill was a lone voice raising concerns about German rearmament; even when the Germans ceded Austria in the Anschluss there were senior politicians willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. One of my clients, Yorkshire Water, went through exactly this same type of corporate inertia during the drought of 1994-95: instead of planning for the possibility f prolonged drought the board continued to place faith in the fact that it couldn't stay dry for ever (it nearly did, with dire consequences for the company - the irony is that the corrective action taken after the drought has ensured that the same problem will never again arise, which is indicative of a point I often make on here that catastrophe WILL galvanise action, even if it is expensive action compared with earlier preventitive measures).

What irks me most is the sense I have from the likes of d-b and Mondy that their complaints are actually political; they certainly have a tendency (d-b in particular) to make mention of how the government might tax us, or deny us the right to do certain things, without any prompting to head in this direction: what psychologists call "leakage" - the inadvertent revelation of motive.

AS G-W said earlier, the time will come when we need to shake off notions of being able to have just because we want something, If we all have to give up some of our luxuries in order to safeguard our planet's future then so be it. I'd like Mondy and d-b to go read Garrit Hardin's article - thus far I see no evidence that they have - then go look themselves in the mirror.

Yes, at present this is all speculation. But I say it over and over; if I wake up in the night smelling smoke I for one go and investigate. One or two on here clearly roll over and go back to sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

One final thing I want to say about my stance before letting the issue drop is that I do not advocate a "do-nothing" stance. At the risk of slipping into political territory, I do feel that all the proposals so far offered by governments and economists (such as Stern) are of limited use or even no use at all. Elsewhere on the forum I have suggested a form of "No Regrets" policy which actually offers incentives to businesses to research, and then switch to, cleaner forms of fuel, and penalises them for failing to do so. This is a sensible, practical approach as fossil fuels are not going to last forever even if they have no impact on the environment - not researching new, cleaner forms of fuel is only going to end up biting us in the bum years down the line. I personally think that Carbon Trading is one of the worst proposals ever suggested for controlled usage of a substance in the history of mankind.

I'm all for cleaning up the planet, but not on the basis of (largely) speculative science. And I think there's a lot more to the climate system than we currently know or are aware of...

EDIT:

As you yourself admit, you've hardly presented anything of substance in this particular thread.

I fail to see the relevence of this comment - I have provided plenty of substance elsewhere on the forum, I have presented some factual information on this thread but this thread never seemed a particularly appropriate forum for a broad debate about GW, as the original question was "Has UK Warming now gone up to stage 3" (to which I would say that we have insufficient evidence to make that assertion).

C-Bob

Edited by Captain_Bobski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
One final thing I want to say about my stance before letting the issue drop is that I do not advocate a "do-nothing" stance. At the risk of slipping into political territory, I do feel that all the proposals so far offered by governments and economists (such as Stern) are of limited use or even no use at all. Elsewhere on the forum I have suggested a form of "No Regrets" policy which actually offers incentives to businesses to research, and then switch to, cleaner forms of fuel, and penalises them for failing to do so. This is a sensible, practical approach as fossil fuels are not going to last forever even if they have no impact on the environment - not researching new, cleaner forms of fuel is only going to end up biting us in the bum years down the line. I personally think that Carbon Trading is one of the worst proposals ever suggested for controlled usage of a substance in the history of mankind.

I'm all for cleaning up the planet, but not on the basis of (largely) speculative science. And I think there's a lot more to the climate system than we currently know or are aware of...

EDIT:

I fail to see the relevence of this comment - I have provided plenty of substance elsewhere on the forum, I have presented some factual information on this thread but this thread never seemed a particularly appropriate forum for a broad debate about GW, as the original question was "Has UK Warming now gone up to stage 3" (to which I would say that we have insufficient evidence to make that assertion).

C-Bob

I'd be interested to hear why you think trading is one of the worst options.

Agree re incentives to change, though I think many large organisations are already getting there in various ways: my work exposes me to many household names and the level of awareness about "green" issues is increasing dramatically, not only because there is direct cost advantage (reduced fuel bills), but also because customers will increasingly discern between suppliers on this basis. Some business to business deals are already contingent on a satisfactory environmental audit being completed prior to any deal being struck.

Organisations directly in the carbon cycle (e.g oil majors) are investing huge sums of money in alternatives, as well as becomig ever smarter at extracting what's there (hence the notion of "peak oil" has shifted dramatically in out lifetimes). There's also a big industry growing in energy and carbon advice.

Trading is a decent compromise so long as it exists within quotas. It is doubly beneficial if the trading tariff is recycled as investment in future technologies. It may not be ideal viewed through idealists specs, but it recognises a pragmatic need to balance the first world's capital investment with the emerging economies' desire to grow, and of itself it places an incentive to be carbon efficient if, by being so, I can sell on my quota. If, simultaneously, carbon costs stay high (and higher than alternatives / energy efficient plants) then this will pass on to cost of goods and continued polluters will find themselves at a price disadvantage in the market, or else will run on reduced margins - thus impacting share price / retained capital.

Quite agree re your contributions elsewhere, and you're right, this thread has meandered off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
I'd be interested to hear why you think trading is one of the worst options.

I've got to dash out, so I'll elaborate later, but basically any form of trading is open to exploitation. Whether the trading involves buying carbon credits with actual money or with another commodity, it leaves open the door for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. The poorer the country, the more likely they'll have to use dirty fuels, so the more carbon credits they'll need and so on. Capitalism at its worst.

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...