Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

'Naysayers Guide to Global Warming.


Mondy

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
The IPCC has proved consistantly wrong, in that it has erred on the side of caution and underestimated the effects of AGW.

HGW or GW? A bit earlier one of you were making it clear that I, and others, were ignorant to suggest anyone believed our warming regime was 100% human influence. Nice to catch you saying what you really think, that the warming is all AGW.

Here are the IPCC predictions for the four reports to date.

First IPCC - 1990

Predicted by 2100: +3 oC

Second IPCC - 1995

Predicted by 2100: +1.0 - 3.5 oC

Third IPCC - 2001

Predicted by 2100: +1.4 - 5.8 oC

Fourth IPCC - 2007

Predicted by 2100: +1.8 - 4 oC

The IPCC with its greenhouse gas models have upped the lower figure +0.4 over the last three reports. No consistent trend with its maximum figure, however. This suggests to me their theory suggests the warming trend will continue but does not know why. With 1.8 oC difference between 2001 and 2007 how "serious" the warming is still to be nailed. Over the last decade and a half the IPCC have so many numbers down chances are at least one report will look right in the end, unless the warm regime is either not GHG driven or some other way is reversed.

The graph was produced (without the black line) in 1988, by the GISS GCM (model). In 1988 they estimated how the temparature would change. The record of the last 19 years (actually, it may be 18 on the graph) since it was first published shows a close match between the orignal estimate and the actual outcome. [it was] claim[ed] that no models have predicted anything yet. This one did.

:)P

Senario A was wrong. Sernario C & B look closer but it's probably just coincidence as what actually happened diverged from what the green senario predicted in the mid 1970s and early 1980s (wrong on mild and cold, respectively). The blue scenario C began in 1990 and over the next 10 years fared even worse. That graph doesn't prove anything other than a model predicted warming, what the modellists were looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Great posts Roger and SF and good points Mondy, i tend to agree with Roger on the simple fact that the Earth is warming up however i don't agree with the pro-GW people who really are forcing there opinions onto us and basically saying 'no' you cannot be right you 'are' wrong and this is totally wrong IMO, people are doing thing's 'even' if they don't know they are and the Government are going to make us change our ways wether we like it or not.

Now if these changes do actually matter at all we will find out, however i refuse to be told i am wrong until proven otherwise in the coming years.

I really have nothing more to add to this arguement other than agreeing with Mondy and saying thank-you to some of the more thought out posts in here and i see no reason to reply with evidence as it's simply dismissed and classed as something from a thicko and let's be honest alot of you look down on other forum members because they don't have the time nor patience to specialise in such a subject.

Thanks, DB. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Nr Appleby in Westmorland
  • Location: Nr Appleby in Westmorland
Great posts Roger and SF and good points Mondy, i tend to agree with Roger on the simple fact that the Earth is warming up however i don't agree with the pro-GW people who really are forcing there opinions onto us and basically saying 'no' you cannot be right you 'are' wrong and this is totally wrong IMO, people are doing thing's 'even' if they don't know they are and the Government are going to make us change our ways wether we like it or not.
And the consequence of those people being wrong is what? Inconvenience?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

As i have said i am doing my bit trying to slow the earth warming however i don't believe in GW....the consequence is the loss of your wife because you argue on the net too much :):)

...hang on, carry on then :)

Edited by disco-barry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Parmenides i have been about on this forum for abit and in my experience this isnt correct however in saying that i will only provoke another response asking me to prove what i say blah blah, that is if this isnt deleted before then.

Thanks though Parmenides, DB :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

DB: if that's how you feel, then that's how you feel; nobody can ask that you prove anything. I just think it's a shame that you - or anyone - feels this way. Sometimes I know we get carried away with what we are discussing and get a bit high-flown, but it isn't to prove anything, or to sound superior, only to try and communicate difficult ideas. Being simple is more difficult than people realise.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent
DB: if that's how you feel, then that's how you feel; nobody can ask that you prove anything. I just think it's a shame that you - or anyone - feels this way. Sometimes I know we get carried away with what we are discussing and get a bit high-flown, but it isn't to prove anything, or to sound superior, only to try and communicate difficult ideas. Being simple is more difficult than people realise.

:)P

Yes its a well known fact that simplicity is extremely complex to achieve.

Also I have got to say that this has been an excellent thread and I have found it very useful and helpful. I am sure that many sceptics and believers are actually a lot closer together then they realise and I think this thread has certainly shown that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Ok Naysayers, maybe you have an answer for me. During the Eemian (125,000yrs ago) temps were 2c above the 1971-2000 average. Sea levels were a whopping 5m above todays levels. Why , when the IPCC report has 2c at the bottom end of their predictions, do they insist that sea levels will only rise by 70cm???

Surely you lot are best versed in past climatic cycles so how could they (IPCC) be so numb nutted? surely a 2c rise means a 5m rise in sea level (in line with 'past' experience)?

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Great posts Roger and SF and good points Mondy, i tend to agree with Roger on the simple fact that the Earth is warming up however i don't agree with the pro-GW people who really are forcing there opinions onto us and basically saying 'no' you cannot be right you 'are' wrong and this is totally wrong IMO, people are doing thing's 'even' if they don't know they are and the Government are going to make us change our ways wether we like it or not.

Now if these changes do actually matter at all we will find out, however i refuse to be told i am wrong until proven otherwise in the coming years.

I really have nothing more to add to this arguement other than agreeing with Mondy and saying thank-you to some of the more thought out posts in here and i see no reason to reply with evidence as it's simply dismissed and classed as something from a thicko and let's be honest alot of you look down on other forum members because they don't have the time nor patience to specialise in such a subject.

Thanks, DB. :D

No one is forcing anything on you! You're free to debate, to put your opinion, or not - like all of us. If you choose to believe one version I can't make you not, but I think I also have a right to put my view across? But, debate, public debate, is about, well, debate, if someone can't sustain their position (on either side) public debate will, in the end, show that. That, surely, has to be good?

Btw, governments are elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

Lets do some proper mathematics this morning. Or rather, simple arithmatic. :D It took me ages to come up with all this, but i think it proves a valid point. Be gentle with me if i'm wrong in the calculations! I'm willing to put them up regardless.

The average output of CO2 in UK has been determined to be 11.8 Tonnes per person per year.

Now, the USA produces more than UK and other countries produce less, so lets assume that the world output of apparent man made CO2 is 12 tonnes per person per year. A pretty fair estimate. That amounts to a total of 80 billion tonnes per year for the whole 6.6 billion members of the human race who populated the world at the start of 2007.

The surface area of planet earth is 0.51 x 10^15 sq.m

The standard atmospheric pressure is 1013.2 millibars.

That makes the weight of the atmosphere 5 x 10^15 tonnes.

Of which 1.6 x 10^12 tonnes is CO2.

Thats 1.6 Trillion tonnes.

So, the 80 billion tonnes of CO2 produced annually by human action amounts to two thousandths of 1% of the existing CO2 in the atmosphere. Or 0.002% - a very small percentage increase indeed...

Oh, and that's before the Earth's normal CO2 absorbtion processes act upon it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
No: Longwave radiation = heat, shortwave radiation = light. The gases in the atmosphere absorb some of the sun's radiative energy, and reflect some more back into space, but it has a different frequency to the radiation which upwells from the surface. CO2 (and other GHGs) are more efficient at absorbing LWR than SWR. To add to the complexity, I think it has something to do with pressure and temperature differential, which is why a lot of effort is put into looking at the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere, where the balance of influences is critical. I'm looking at this now, will report back in new thread; where will define what radiation actually is :whistling: I did, actually, understand that solar radiation is SW . . .

You can look for the nitrogen links yourself; I do have other things to do, honest! I did look, but couldn't find any :(

I am worried that our personal discussion is starting to get technical and may encourage some readers to lose the will to live. Yes. I think it's time to have another thread !!

I still want to establish more general agreement on a basic idea; is CO2 a 'greenhouse gas'? I don't disagree with you that it's important to understand the physics, but here, on this 'naysaying' thread, I want to know what people do & don't think, and what any 'naysayer' is willing to agree on. Does CO2 contribute to increased warming at the surface? If I can find the gas emissions papers that agree with what I've said previously, then, yes!

:)P

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New York City
  • Location: New York City

Lunchtime!

This topic is moving very quickly.

Villageplank: Much of what you are saying is correct in the first principle regarding CO2 and other gasses, but its the zero principle you are missing, and results in your "woolly"-ness.

What I think would be useful is some technical discussion on the woolly area tonight, which I shall post about, with detail on methane and carbon dioxide.

New thread here we come, and if there is a bored mod, could they move the last couple of pages of discussion to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Lunchtime!

This topic is moving very quickly.

Villageplank: Much of what you are saying is correct in the first principle regarding CO2 and other gasses, but its the zero principle you are missing, and results in your "woolly"-ness.

What I think would be useful is some technical discussion on the woolly area tonight, which I shall post about, with detail on methane and carbon dioxide.

New thread here we come, and if there is a bored mod, could they move the last couple of pages of discussion to it?

Two new threads already, Hiya; I think we need a mod to tidy up...

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
Ok Naysayers, maybe you have an answer for me. During the Eemian (125,000yrs ago) temps were 2c above the 1971-2000 average. Sea levels were a whopping 5m above todays levels. Why , when the IPCC report has 2c at the bottom end of their predictions, do they insist that sea levels will only rise by 70cm???

Surely you lot are best versed in past climatic cycles so how could they (IPCC) be so numb nutted? surely a 2c rise means a 5m rise in sea level (in line with 'past' experience)?

Surely you don't expect a Naysayer to come in here and defend the IPCC's models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New York City
  • Location: New York City

Channel 4 news last night was telling us to "combat climate change" also used in the same context are words like: tackle, reverse, manage.

Does anyone else think that the way the news puts across the phrase, climate change, is in the wrong context? Since what they are talking about is AGW. Climate change is a natural occurance, as shown by the past climate. They wouldn't put up a headline urging us to tackle evolution, some of the species you know today, in a few million years might not exist.

Does that rub other people up too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

Part of the CH4 (snigger snigger) broadcasting remit (or perhaps subscription, or sponsership), from the PBS, is to produce programs that challenge the norm and provoke discussion and debate. There's nothing to say that their collective broadcasting view should be consistent.

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4468713209160533271

For those with great patience...or broadband internet. A short, 28 odd minute, film done by the Climate department of the University of Calgary.

Blows Global Warming theory out the water :huh:

14mins in and CO2 gets the nod..

Edit: It's a must see.

Edited by Mondy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...