'Naysayers Guide to Global Warming.

[Mondy]

Nope. Climate Change is not 'Global Warming' or AGW for that matter.

[acbrixton]

Hi ACB.

Purely to show in this era of 'Global Warming' and all sorts of warming records being broken, not least in the UK, it goes to show that not everywhere in the world is warming.

So with NZ claiming to have its coldest summer in 14 years, not all the globe is warming

Mondy thanks. Not too sure if data for 1 season in 1 country proves that point!

Regards

ACB

[Bobby]

So with NZ claiming to have its coldest summer in 14 years, not all the globe is warming

That means absolutely nothing. Of course not all the world will always have temperatures above average forever and ever from now on just because of GW. Some places may well get cooler periods, maybe well below average. But the average trend will be up up and away.

[parmenides3]

Mondy! Global Warming refers to the net average temperature over the globe. Of course some places are not as warm as others, sometimes. What has happened over the past 13 summers in NZ? (I don't know). Neither the GW nor the AGW scenarios require the whole globe to be warming; this is a simple misunderstanding. As you have pointed out previously, there isn't much warming evident in the central Antarctic, either. Neither of these acts as evidence against the argument that the atmosphere, on average, is warming. Read, for example, NOAA's State of the Climate report, for an overview of all regions.

:)P

[Essan]

Nope. Climate Change is not 'Global Warming' or AGW for that matter.

But Global Warming is Climate Change. And Global Warming does not means everywhere gets warmer, nor that some places can't still have colder than usual conditions on occasions. Just as Ice Age does not mean everywhere is colder

[Mondy]

Accpet my humble apologies will you all. I'm knackered, wired up to paracetemol and toothache galore. I'm not thinking straight. I've also lost a little interest in the thread, if i'm honest. Hopefully be re-ignited by next Thursday's C4 program! Carru on, though. Nice to see ACB posting in the thread - i'm sure an erdudite person such as your goodself has something to input.

[acbrixton]

Mondy thank you for the undeserved compliment!

Sorry to hear you are in pain and hope you are back to your normal disputacious self soon.

I try to avoid posting on matters where my knowledge is inadequate or I have nothing of any value to add (that cuts out pretty much all the climatological/meterological threads...I am here to learn).

Regards

ACB

[Gray-Wolf]

How many more of us will be struggling with our teeth on this board??? Hope it ain't your wisdoms (as mine is) 'cause you end up with earache as well. Seeing as I had my wisdoms X-rayed last check up I'm wondering whether it's another 'face' of this nasty virus and more nuralgia than toothache.....try Brufen Mondy...less inflamation, less pain!"

When the warming reaches a certain point then there will be a period of 'cooling' as Greenland/Antarctica shed their ice sheets. We do not want to see that.

[Hiya]

We already have them. They're called trees. But they need to be planted inn tropical regions to be effective.

Guess where there's been mass deforestation over the past 50 years? Guess where it's continuing at this very moment. Guess how Indonesia manages to produce 10% of the world's carbon emissions?

Why are we only now starting to properly research the impact the loss of the world's tropical rain forests have on global climate?

Which is exactly what we'd expect with climate change. After all, during some parts of the last ice age, some places were warmer in summer than they are today ......

Absolutely spot on.

[Admiral_Bobski]

There does seem to be a bit of toothache about on this board - maybe we should have a poll: "Do these discussions make you grind your teeth?!"

C-Bob

[The Eagle]

Its not what the GW lobby says that gets to me but rather what they dont say. Im sure someone here can explain the Global cooling between 1948 and 1972 for example?

[HighPressure]

Its not what the GW lobby says that gets to me but rather what they dont say. Im sure someone here can explain the Global cooling between 1948 and 1972 for example?

I would like to hear an experts view on this too, my own theory notes that Cooling coincided with reduced solar activity, increased human sulphur emsissions and although the data is not very robust increased Volcanic activity. The cooling did seem to be more pronounced in those areas of the world which were also burning large amounts of coal.

[The Eagle]

burning large amounts of coal.

Thats the crux of this issue here. This was the time when coal burning and smog was at its worst but you will struggle to find a credible argument from the GW lobby here because they have no answer to that. It was in the 70's that the world was told by 'eminent scientists' (sound familiar!) that a new Ice Age was beginning. That lost them an awful lot of credibility.

[parmenides3]

Thats the crux of this issue here. This was the time when coal burning and smog was at its worst but you will struggle to find a credible argument from the GW lobby here because they have no answer to that. It was in the 70's that the world was told by 'eminent scientists' (sound familiar!) that a new Ice Age was beginning. That lost them an awful lot of credibility.

Scientists do have an explanation for the cooling from the 1940's-70's. It has to do with the pollutants other than the greenhouse gases which filled our skies for years. These - such as sulphur compunds - cool the atmosphere because they reflect light back in to space which would otherwise have reached the surface. If you choose to think that this explanation (and the supporting scientific work which confirms it) is not credible, then that is up to you.

In the 1970's, after thirty years of slight cooling, which at the time was not attributed, a number of scientists speculated that we might be at the start of the next ice age. The media blew these speculations out of all proportion. After a bit of analysis and research, scientists came up with the explanation and the idea of a possible ice age was rejected very quickly. Who loses credibility from this? Not the scientists, who did their usual jobs and worked out the answers, but the media, who jumped on the disaster bandwagon and sold more papers on the back of a scare story which had a very thin substance.

Do you think that scientists are wrong about GW, then? All of them? Do you think they get paid and keep their jobs, even though they are incompetent?

:)P

[The Eagle]

Scientists do have an explanation for the cooling from the 1940's-70's. It has to do with the pollutants other than the greenhouse gases which filled our skies for years. These - such as sulphur compunds - cool the atmosphere because they reflect light back in to space which would otherwise have reached the surface. If you choose to think that this explanation (and the supporting scientific work which confirms it) is not credible, then that is up to you.

In the 1970's, after thirty years of slight cooling, which at the time was not attributed, a number of scientists speculated that we might be at the start of the next ice age. The media blew these speculations out of all proportion. After a bit of analysis and research, scientists came up with the explanation and the idea of a possible ice age was rejected very quickly. Who loses credibility from this? Not the scientists, who did their usual jobs and worked out the answers, but the media, who jumped on the disaster bandwagon and sold more papers on the back of a scare story which had a very thin substance.

Do you think that scientists are wrong about GW, then? All of them?

Im sorry but this is rubbish tbh. 'Caused by Greenhouse gasses' - other pollutants? No your not making sense there.

'a number of scientists' - this is BS tbh. Its the same with the IPCC. They got a large group of 'eminent scientists' out in 1976 to say that an Ice Age was imminent. Im sure there are records of this somewhere. Funny how you dont hear about that.

'do you think the scientists are wrong about GW then' - Yes

'all of them' - All of what? A large number of scientists vigourisly despute these spurious claims of AGW.

'the media blew these speculations out of all proportions' - pot, kettle, black as regards todays GW fanatic scientists.

'rejected very quickly' - wrong, like now they delivered it as if it was fact and the media bought it very quickly.

'do these scientists get paid' - is this a joke question? Of course they are paid and hence what you are talking about is well within vested interest.

'Scientists do have an explanation for the cooling from the 1940's-70's' - sorry to burst the bubble but they absolutely do not have an explanation for this. They have theories - no facts.

'These - such as sulphur compounds - cool the atmosphere because they reflect light back in to space' - This is known as Global Dimming - Even at its max there is no way it is responsible for lower temperatures Globally and this still occurs today.

'If you choose to think that this explanation (and the supporting scientific work which confirms it) is not credible, then that is up to you.' - yes it is. So prove it is credible.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Darkman

[Iceberg]

The cooling period in question was I believe due to a number of forcings, partly pollution (thought to have been caused partly by the mass industrialization after the and during the second world war). If you want scientific papers, which from the tone of your post above your not likely to believe anyway I'd suggest visiting the IPCC website first as this negative forcing in included in many of their predictions including AR4.

Other factors are natural cycles (yes they do exist !), natural PDO cycles etc favoured cooling at this point in time (in the same way they favoured warming before this and after this).

Also solar forcings during this period helped to bring temps down.

This is where it backs up the theory that current warming is not natural.

With all respect your memory might be failing you with the 70's Ice age thoery.

Firstly it was a new fashionable theory

It had very little scientific study behind it and our understanding of Climate was in it's infancy.

The body of scientists that agreed with the theory was nothing like the number of scientists that now agree with AGW, there was nothing like the IPCC either.

It was basically a small group of 20-30 scientists (mostly British) which was then pounced on by the Media, many other scientists viewed it with interest but nothing more.

I'd suggest reading the thread on the history of the AGW theory, then you might see that the AGW theory has over 100 years of science behind it.

Science and Scientists work with levels of confidence, not facts that's left to School children looking at books.

I know alot of people have a problem with the way the media represents AGW, but this is not the fault of the Scientists or the IPCC or even the theory, like most things in life I would say try and view the world without letting the media bias you too much.

But as you say whether you want to let the media effect you too much is up to you.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think the most interesting thing about the 'global dimming' period lies either side of the 'flat portion' of the temp graphs. If you take the increases in temp up to 1940 and then the increases from 1980 you'll find they 'tag together' quite nicely. Sadly, the rate of increase with global dimming removed is far greater than the predicted rate of increase.

For those who find it difficult to believe 'little old man' could possibly affect our climate this period of 'negative forcing' has an 'end date' for you to see how quickly the removal of pollution from the upper atmosphere changed out global rate of change........or was it all just coincidence??

[parmenides3]

Im sorry but this is rubbish tbh. 'Caused by Greenhouse gasses' - other pollutants? No your not making sense there.

'a number of scientists' - this is BS tbh. Its the same with the IPCC. They got a large group of 'eminent scientists' out in 1976 to say that an Ice Age was imminent. Im sure there are records of this somewhere. Funny how you dont hear about that.

'do you think the scientists are wrong about GW then' - Yes

'all of them' - All of what? A large number of scientists vigourisly despute these spurious claims of AGW.

'the media blew these speculations out of all proportions' - pot, kettle, black as regards todays GW fanatic scientists.

'rejected very quickly' - wrong, like now they delivered it as if it was fact and the media bought it very quickly.

'do these scientists get paid' - is this a joke question? Of course they are paid and hence what you are talking about is well within vested interest.

'Scientists do have an explanation for the cooling from the 1940's-70's' - sorry to burst the bubble but they absolutely do not have an explanation for this. They have theories - no facts.

'These - such as sulphur compounds - cool the atmosphere because they reflect light back in to space' - This is known as Global Dimming - Even at its max there is no way it is responsible for lower temperatures Globally and this still occurs today.

'If you choose to think that this explanation (and the supporting scientific work which confirms it) is not credible, then that is up to you.' - yes it is. So prove it is credible.

Hi, Darkman; you're obviously up for a fight, and I wouldn't want to disappoint you. Let's see if you can respond with some evidence for your comments; I have provided supporting evidence countless times for mine; you can find it throughout these threads on NW.

Your first comment: Which bit do you not understand? Human activity produces a variety of by-products which are expelled into the atmosphere. Some of these dissipate rapidly, some hang around; some reflect solar radiation away from the surface, some prevent returning solar radiation from escaping the atmosphere. Which bits do what is well known. Though it seems you have difficulty reading an entire sentence, and like to extract sections and respond to these, it says more about your willingness to understand than my capacity to communicate. If, however, you have already decided that what I am saying is rubbish, that is your choice. Whether that choice makes you look clever or foolish is for others to decide.

Your second comment has been dealt with already. If you are going to comment on the history of climate change discussion, I suggest you get your facts right first. What little sense this comment makes is an obvious misunderstanding. The IPCC had nothing to do with the 'ice age' hypothesis, and very few scientists - probably none, in fact - came out and said they believed a new icea age was on the way. Claiming that this minor, media-based story is proof that the current science is therefore also wrong is a classic denialist strategy; but it doesn't work, because the two have no effective relationship. The validity or soundness of any one hypothesis is not dependent on a previous hypothesis, unless it uses it as part of its working. It's not funny that you don't hear about it. Denialists go on about it all the time, as if it's significant, even though the assumption underlying the statement is patently false. Scientists don't need to discuss it, because they already know about it and it isn't really of much importance.

Why do you think the scientists are wrong about GW? Do you think their thermometers are broken? Do you believe that they are (all) lying? Do you imagine that the thousands of research papers and measurements are entirely spurious and based on poor practice or incorrect physics? Do you imagine that the scientific community works in such a way that 'bad' science gets published in such volumes? Exactly how is it that so many highly trained, intelligent experts from all round the world can be so completely wrong? Perhaps you don't have a reason, you just 'don't believe' them?

This is a good one: '...a large number of scientists vigorously dispute these spurious claims of AGW...' Not the case. A very small number of scientists vigorously justify the funding they get from the petrochemical industry by spreading disinformation about AGW. Even these people no longer claim that the climate isn't actually warming - GW (what we were talking about before). By using the term 'spurious' you are already passing judgement on the claims. They can only be spurious if they are false. Secondly: I thought all scientists were idiots? If you reject the work of the thousands, but accept the work (such as it is) of the few scientists who seems to agree with you, you are accepting that science isn't necessarily 'wrong'. So why accept the thoughts of the few in preference to those of the many? Are they doing a different kind of science? Your position on this involves an inconsistency which falsifies it.

Your next comment is simply a rant and has no meaningful content.

Your next comment is false, as has already been explained.

Your last paragraph once again quotes half a sentence. What are you trying to demonstrate? Quoting half a sentence and then questioning the sense of the writer is an example of a poor rhetorical device at best. It doesn't make you look clever. Your final sentence is simply a contradiction of my statement. Disagreement is not in itself an argument.

You challenge me to prove that this explanation is credible. Why should I bother? You have already decided that it is not. Offering you the supporting evidence that I have provided many, many times on NW would be a waste of effort; you can go look for it if you want. I have better things to do with my time.

In summary, then, the only statement you appear to have made in response to the explanation is that you don't believe it. Good for you.

:)P

[Mondy]

'The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have,' says Tim Ball, Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg in the documentary. 'They said if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up'.

In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and that this alternate view is rarely heard. 'So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong.'

'I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,' says John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, NSSTC University of Alabama. 'Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.'

The film examines an alternative theory that explains global temperatures, based on research by Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish Space Center. The professor and his team found that as solar activity increases, and the sun flares, cloud formation on earth is significantly diminished and temperature rises.

Ian Clark, Professor of Isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology at the Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa explains: 'Solar activity over the last hundred years, over the last several hundred years, correlates very nicely, on a decadal basis, with temperature.'

Finally, the film argues that restricting CO2 emissions could actually be damaging for people in the developing world. James Shikwati, Kenyan director of the Inter Region Economic Network, says: 'The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy, but for us we are still at the stage of survival.

'I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway network, it might work, maybe, to power a small transistor radio.

'The thing that emerges from the whole environmental debate is the point that there is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop. We are being told don't touch your resources, don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal; that is suicide.'

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...ndle/page3.html

[Devonian]

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...ndle/page3.html

I think that grubbily titled little documentary will need a dedicated thread. But, be warned, I'm in a fighting mood People calling my views a swindle can expect their words to be slung back

Edited March 4, 2007 by Devonian

[parmenides3]

...this is a naysayer's thread; resist, resist...

A classic set of examples of statements which don't say quite what they appear to.

Perhaps we should start up a 'NWers with dodgy teeth' society, Mondy? But we'd need a good acronym...

:)P

[Mondy]

:lol:

*dons thinking cap*

[Gray-Wolf]

..

Perhaps we should start up a 'NWers with dodgy teeth' society, Mondy? But we'd need a good acronym...

:lol: P

I'm sure it's tied up with global warming somehow!!! (clenches and grinds as he types)....or maybe too long in front of the P.C.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

Would you join the 'People with Sore, Hurting or Irritating Teeth' club? Then I could be a Ponions as well as an AHS.

:lol:

Edit; don't you just love that language blocker!

:)P

Or we could be People with Really Awful Teeth. :)P

Edited March 4, 2007 by parmenides3

[Mondy]

I'm a bit 'long in the tooth' for the swear filter,P3

*groan* :lol: