The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Gray-Wolf]

And so those who wish to deny any human input (though not the good Dr himself) will haul it around as 'proof' that science questions AGW. But that is what science does, question things, it proves things neither right or wrong just better understood.

In so far as the 'natural climatic variations' I feel personally that there will be more surprises in store with the finer details/short term cycles and some of these 'Surprises' will be less than pleasant but none of it will negate the polluting,murderous assault that humans have subjected the planet too since the end of the last ice age (and most notably over the last 150yrs) and the impacts this is having on the fine balence that used to hold sway over our global climate.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

One of the problems I have with the good doctor's paper is the absence of an alternative explanation for recent temperature changes. It's all very well saying that the recent changes represent a 'recovery' from the LIA (we'll ignore the assumption that there is a 'golden mean' for natural temperatures, at the moment), but for such a recovery to happen still requires an input of energy from somewhere. There is nothing wrong with asking exactly how much of recent warming is down to CO2, but if you are arguing that it is less than other people are saying, you have to then account for the changes in global heat balance some other way.

:)P

[Mondy]

and most notably over the last 150yrs

Of which the earth's temperature has risen a catastrophic 0.6C.*

*According to the IPCC, the Global Temperature has increased by a whopping 0.6C over the last 150 years.

Therefore, i take issue with this!

Day temperature yesterday: 11C

Night temperature tonight: 5C

That is 6C lower! ! Are we heading for another Ice Age??!

Look what Professor Bjarne Andresen, University of Copenhagen has to say:

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature*. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

* It would be appear to be ruled by a 0.6C temp hike, though.

Ergo Conclusio Memorandum: There is no such thing as a Global Temperature, only in the mind of politicians and other people with an agenda.

I'm off out for dog walkies. It's a glorious 12.2C today; better make the most of it - sure looks like cooling during the evening/overnight.

NB: All of the above is 100% firmly in cheek.

NB2: No, i still don't believe in the current and projected gloom.

Adios

[parmenides3]

We are all going to hell and it's all Mondy's fault!

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

One of the problems I have with the good doctor's paper is the absence of an alternative explanation for recent temperature changes. It's all very well saying that the recent changes represent a 'recovery' from the LIA (we'll ignore the assumption that there is a 'golden mean' for natural temperatures, at the moment), but for such a recovery to happen still requires an input of energy from somewhere. There is nothing wrong with asking exactly how much of recent warming is down to CO2, but if you are arguing that it is less than other people are saying, you have to then account for the changes in global heat balance some other way.

P

I guess the other way to look at that episodes impacts would be global sea level anomalies (height 'x' prior to LIA, LIA =lower sea levels, now returning back to height 'x') but seas levels seem to be globaly unaffected by LIA as though a 'local' event whereas recent warming IS raising sea levels.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I've noticed some problems with the debate, some of which are, I believe, responsible for the circles we appear to be going around in. I'm going to put up a couple of quotes, but I don't intend for this to be a personal attack (so the quotes shall remain anonymous), and this goes for both sides of the debate (both pro- and anti-AGW).

Firstly, we've had a few wonderful little tete-a-tetes here discussing various aspects of climate change, and our feelings and misgivings, and every now and again we seem to make some kind of progress. One example that springs immediately to my mind is the discussion we recently had about temperature and CO₂ in the Vostok Ice Cores in which we agreed that there was the need for an explanation of why the graphs showed no exponentiality.

A few days later (and I know I've mentioned this before), this is said (of the historic record's insinuation that temp leads CO₂:

Rather than demolish the case for AGW, this actually makes it stronger, because the correlation between warming and CO2 levels is very strong, and CO2 can clearly be seen to be effecting temperatures. Remember, though CO2 is currently a forcing (it rises before temperatures), it can also be a feedback (it starts rising after an initial temp. rise, then enhances the warming); there is no inconsistency in this.

This ignores the discussion that was previously had, and turns the debate back into a Black/White, Right/Wrong argument. On the flip side, there are skeptics out there who still say that the Vostok Ice Core Graph is a nail in the coffin of AGW, which is clearly untrue, despite how often they are told that this is untrue. Clearly the graph shows that there are occasions when temperatures can spontaneously increase or decrease without human input, but that doesn't mean we aren't affecting temperatures now - I agree that a case has to be made for how nature may be spontaneously changing the current temperature. I agree that mankind may be having an impact. Unfortunately, this makes the debate very grey, yet it is still argued in Black and White terms.

Secondly, there is a constant back-and-forth on the issue of whether or not we are more knowledgable now than we were 30+ years ago. Some argue that scientists were perfectly capable of making informed opinions in the '70s, and those opinions may have been wrong, therefore scientists today could equally be wrong. On the other hand there are those that argue like this:

...how big was your P.C. in 1975?...how many Sat.s were up there in 75?...You always go on the best info for the time but that 'info' has a logical 'limit' and so the further down the line the clearer the picture of things. Think of what we knew of the Jovian satellites back then compared to how we know them today. We were wrong when we were guessing but seeing is all...You wouldn't compare Copernicus's knowledge to NASA's would you?

This is false logic, basically saying "We're far more advanced now, therefore we must be right." Science is science - it knows what it knows at the time, and all theories are based on that knowledge. Knowing more than at some arbitrary point in the past doesn't actually put new theories on a firm footing - just a more informed footing (but that doesn't automatically make it right).

To give an example, the ancient Greeks thought atoms were tiny indivisible blobs. In the 19th Century Rutherford proposed a new model of the atom with a tiny nucleus and electrons which orbited at discrete intervals. The Greek idea seemed woefully naive by comparison. Then quantum theory came along and Rutherford's model of the atom seemed almost as naive as the ancient Greeks'. There's a lot more that can be said on this subject, but that's the essential part. Basically, there's no reason to assume our understanding of climatology compared with that in the 1970s is akin to Quantum Theory's atomic model compared with Rutherford's - our current understanding is just as likely to be akin to Rutherford's...inadequate for detailed analysis.

Thirdly - and this is just a quick one - there's far too much "I'm right, you're wrong" type posting, outright dismissals that don't argue a point, such as this:

Those who are pro the AGW argument have no explantation for the rise in temperatue aheard of Carbon emmisissions. This abolishes their arguments completely. End of story.

A discussion is not much of a discussion if nothing is left open to...discussion.

And finally, very few people are willing to play Devil's Advocate. Facts are stated as indisputable facts, whereas many facts are disputable in any scientific field - and even when individual facts may be indisputable, collections of facts which form a theory are still potentially disputable. It's all fine and good to agree with an opinion or a concensus, but it's an essential part of analysis to find out if there may be alternative explanations. There's nothing wrong with saying "I believe 'This', but I suppose "That" might be the case". And it makes for a more open and illuminating debate.

I've rambled on for far too long here, and later I may reply to some specific posts if I get the chance, but I wanted to get all that off my chest...!

CB

Edited March 26, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Mondy]

Michael Buchwitz at Bremen University in Germany, who compiled the movies, says they have real research value. For instance, the methane movie reveals larger than expected emissions from tropical rainforests, confirming some recent research findings.

link

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/sciamachy/NIR_NADIR_WFM_DOAS/

See, even i'm good enough to help the pro-agw!

Trouble is, it's all more model work and during this thread the models have certainly been flamed. A model is only as good depending on how much you "tweak" the data

The data do not provide direct information on emissions. Nevertheless, they should allow scientists to identify countries that fail to declare all their greenhouse gas emissions to international emissions treaties such as the Kyoto protocol, whose targets come into force at the start of 2008.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Mondy

[johnholmes]

I'm not joining this debate again but the comments made by CB regarding listening and accepting another viewpoint rather than tending to rubbish it is a very valid point.

There is still much we do not know, much we do not fully understand.

Perhaps the one unchanging 'fact' if I may call it that is that the earth is warmer now than it was 150 years ago, warmer than it has been for many many centuries. What is not certain by any stretch of the imagination is the exact cause of this warming. Nor really just how long it is going to go on for.

It would naive, I think, to believe this overall warming(not overall) will not continue for a very long time to come.

This is why I advocate, not arguing about what is causing it but, assuming the most moderate predictions about sea level rises are somewhere near of the mark, what must the leaders of the world do to help those that are going to suffer. This is regardless of whether agreements are reached RAPIDLY as to how to decrease the effects humans MAY be having on this warming effect.

There, I said I would not join this debate!! ho hum!!

John

Edited March 26, 2007 by johnholmes

[parmenides3]

C-Bob: I'm still pursuing the feedback question. Trust you also to find an example of something I haven't explained at all well; you are right that it reads as if I've presumed the correlation, so my bad, but it isn't always easy reducing ideas down without sometimes making such statements. I'm not sure, though, that there is much to argue about with saying that CO2 is a forcing...

Mondy: flamed. yeah, right.

:)P

Edit: John, your thoughts are always welcomed. Your suggestion sounds very reasonable, but might imply a policy of adaptation (without the need for mitigation), whereas if, (yes, if) we are contributing to this warming through emissions, then mitigation must also be considered a sensible policy to adapt: this is why the question of attribution is so critical.

:)P

Edited March 26, 2007 by parmenides3

[Mondy]

I should've added - been flamed by me :lol:

[Admiral_Bobski]

C-Bob: I'm still pursuing the feedback question. Trust you also to find an example of something I haven't explained at all well; you are right that it reads as if I've presumed the correlation, so my bad, but it isn't always easy reducing ideas down without sometimes making such statements. I'm not sure, though, that there is much to argue about with saying that CO2 is a forcing...

Sorry if I singled you out in that example, P3 - it wasn't my intention to suggest that you don't listen (or, indeed, to single you out) - but the quote I posted was the most recent example I had noticed with which to illuminate my gripe! That quote was by no means the only example (and probably one of the lesser examples) of how people often seem to listen and accept a point only to seemingly ignore it later on.

It is true what you say about reducing a point - there is only so far you can reduce something before it starts to lose its essential nuances, and sometimes retaining those nuances makes the post too wordy or cumbersome for posting on a chatroom thread.

You're correct, also, to say that there's no doubt that CO₂ has some "forcing factor", but I would like to reiterate that it is by no means fully accepted how much of a forcing can be attributed to CO₂ in the climate system. I have been intending to try and work it out myself from first principles (oh, big-headed me! :lol: ), as we have been discussing on the GW and EM Radiation thread, but I've not had a chance to sit down and try yet

Thank you for your post, John. I'm glad I didn't upset or offend anyone - I was afraid, after I had posted my rant(!), that I was sounding off for no very good reason! I would say, though, that there is no reason to suppose that it won't cool down, seemingly inexplicably, within our lifetimes. I'm not saying that an ice age, or even a cool-down, is imminent: I'm saying that, with our current level of understanding, there's no way that it can be completely ruled out.

Though I do agree that a plan for adaptation is essential.

CB

[Mondy]

Alternative scenarios re: volcanoes? -- once a biggie eruption occurs, global warming will be relegated to the annals of mythdome. And the agw theory will be a forgotten fixture too :lol:

[parmenides3]

Alternative scenarios re: volcanoes? -- once a biggie eruption occurs, global warming will be relegated to the annals of mythdome. And the agw theory will be a forgotten fixture too :lol:

I don't think you're quite reading it right, Mondy: you're supposed to be comparing the black line (with volcanoes) to the yellow line (Without). This shows that adding volcanoes makes a little different, but not very much compared to other forcings.

:)P

[Mondy]

The trouble i have with a graph like this is if you fast forward, to say, 2150 and look back, how much will the graph have changed? How much solar forcing is evident within this graph?

The IPCC range, a bit like themselves, looks silly and unnessary. The type of thing Al Gore or some other eco-hero would jump on.

I have huge difficulty in agreeing with that graph. It's hypothesis, guesswork, model projection, aimed to scare. I mean, look at the scenario with volcanoes. A massive worldwide volcano event and the temp drops a very small fraction. [by that stage, and if a massive eruption has occured, the world community will again jump on the Global Cooling aspect. It's common nature]

edit P3..i'm not finished..i just quickly refreshed and noticed your post.....

In all truth, there is nothing in that graph which makes wonder why so many pro-agw bang on about impending worry.

Most graphs i look at contain factual, historical data, inturn enabling a graph to be constructed.

This is just kidology, fuelled by 30-something scientists with mega computers, probably themselves unaware how to use them.

Never, ever will i go with this AGW flow. Never.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Mondy

[parmenides3]

I'm not sure where the graph came from - it looks like the one from the Hansen paper in December - but I think you have misunderstood what 'alternative scenario' refers to: it's not talking about volcanoes, but about the modelled effect of immediate emissions reductions; this is not a scenario included in the IPCC SRES, so it's an 'alternative' one.

All of the lines show expected warming from both CO2 and Solar, as well as albedo and aerosol effects, amongst others, all added together. They aren't meant to be scary; they are the best efforts of a lot of clever people trying very hard to work out what might happen if we continue along our current path, or if we deviate from that path in the future. If you find the implications alarming (whether or not you agree with them is another issue), you might better understand why I & others feel that it is important that people understand what climate science is trying to tell us.

:)P

[Mondy]

you might better understand why I & others feel that it is important that people understand what climate science is trying to tell us.

:)P

P3 that's the first time you've actually admitted (in my book anyway) that you believe in this crap called agw

Edited March 26, 2007 by Mondy

[parmenides3]

P3 that's the first time you've actually admitted (in my book anyway) that you believe in this crap called agw

I've tried very hard to show an even hand, but my purpose has always been to allow other people to understand the science as much as possible and work out for themselves whether they believe it or not. But now the cat's out of the bag; yes, the balance of evidence has swayed me, though no, I don't buy the whole package, and no, I don't expect a disaster or a catastrophe, just steadily, slowly, inexorably increasing little problems, slowly getting worse.

:)P

[PersianPaladin]

I think there is a lack of middle ground here. The media or society seems to either over-ramp AGW to the point of embarassment or we get dodgy people like 'IceAgeNow' with their own propaganda and a seemingly dodgy agenda for business, oil-production, etc. Governments and corps meddle in the science and we have the usual rash of genuine skeptics intermingled with controversial 'scientists' with untested hypotheses or methods.

I think the trends in the last few decades speak for themselves....AGW is real and concerning and we need to change our lifestyles to be less wasteful of energy and more caring for the environment. However, I do not buy the over-ramping of it from the doom merchants or the opposite extremes from those who 'rubbish' the reports.

[Mondy]

PP. I've not got time for a more indepth reply just now - it's bedtime for some of us(!), but i'll gladly continue this theme tomorrow at some point. Part of your post needs disected - i'd rather do it now while i remember..

If i may quote you...

AGW is real

Is it?

Prove it.

[johnholmes]

no one can PROVE it Mondy. Stop asking for the impossible. What is more easily available is the mounting evidence that humans, note my terminology, 'MAY BE ADDING' to the FACT the earth is getting warmer. See my earlier post about this comment.

Sticking our heads in the sand is not an option. IF the earth warms as much over the next 150 years as the last 150 then many many thousands of people will be under water. That is FACT, IF the previous sentence is eventually proved to be correct. The problem with waiting for it to be proved is the rise of the sea levels will by then mean people either drown or move. So many will need to move that the present perceived problems with immigration in some countries will become minuscule compared with what people movement will be required.

That is why I say we should stop worrying what is causing the earth to warm and concentrate not on trying to stop it but in getting all governments to accept a policy which will start to work on what we are able to do. That is plan in advance for this mass movement of people.

Not alarmist, its fairly low key and pretty factual in my view.

ps

by all means bring in laws about carbon emissions/fuel etc but the main need is as outlined above. Plan.

Edited March 26, 2007 by johnholmes

[The Eagle]

no one can PROVE it Mondy.

Yes and this is the issue is it not? They could not prove in the 70s (despite the fact that technology was up to the task that time apparently) that an Ice Age was pending. Should we believe them now - no - credibility gone. Its a BIG con-job atm and I hope people realise that.

The most morally repugnant thing is that these Green lunatics are actually proposing that Africa (for example) does not develope. What does that tell you about these guys?

Edited March 27, 2007 by Darkman

[The Eagle]

The most morally repugnant thing is that these Green lunatics are actually proposing that Africa (for example) does not develope. What does that tell you about these guys? They are looney, completely detached from reality and tbh its about time they stopped treating the human race as scum to this planet, that we are rejects not deserving of our right to use this worlds resources. There is a crazy political demension to this that is rarley exposed and that is that the hard left has embraced the Global Warming agenda with open arms and they are being fed by the paranioa you are being fed in the general media. You beleive it because you are gullible. What could be more resounding in the mind then the proposterous ideology that you are responsible for your planet changing its climate? It really defies belief that most seem to be following this propaganda by a bunch of compromised fools who would do anything to make a quick buck (including telling you that your house is soon to be flooded and your way of life is unsustainable).This is morally wrong and should be tackled. The other objectives of these facists (thats what they (you) are, telling people they cant do this or that) are amongst others against development and free trade. They are against the free market in general. They are pro what was primative 1,000 years ago and they wont rest until we are all living in tents waiting for the next apple to fall off the tree.

This is reality. Some GW fanatics are not so bent however most are and its something that we must live with and fight to prerserve our standard of living.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Darkman

[Mondy]

no one can PROVE it Mondy. Stop asking for the impossible

So. Agw cannot be proved and it's impossible to answer/clarify? Interesting. Does this mean the pro-agw are being duped? Imagine being so hell bent on forcing such theories down other peoples throats when proof is not there and it's impossible to tell.

Everything you say Darkman is spot on. Indeed, from about page 3 or 4 of this thread onwards (for those who have joined the discussion late), you, I and others have been singing from the same hymn sheet on this "theory".

Right. Work, Mondy.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Mondy

[johnholmes]

so what do we do whilst the world gets warmer and more of its land surface goes under water? Argue and shout ya boo at one another or actually start to prepare for what is most likely to happen?

Both Darkman and Mondy are agreed AGW is not happening, but seem loathe to accept that GW is and its probable result.

So what do you both propose the world should do?

Most, the majority, both on here and elsewhere accept that AGW in some form is happening, so again, what does anyone propose.

I've tried to make my position clear.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I've asked this before, and it really is a very basic question; if we take precautions on the assumption that AGW is real, and it's not, what's the harm? If we don't take precautions, and we're wrong....then what?

Saying things like "prove it" is a complete waste of time, because, really, why does it matter? Yes, many of you are interested in the science. Yes, it's interesting. Yes, it almost certainly isn't as clear cut as the media would suggest. But there are some who, I'm sure, just like to be different.